Pecer net 


trees 


a 


BT wor B6Sv 13S 51. 

Bonar, Horatius, 1808-1889. 

Truth and error, or, Letters 
to a friend on some of the. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/trutherrororlettOO0bona 


ed 


TRUTH AND ERROR: 


F -OR, 


TO A FRIEND, 


" ON 


Sut ie of the Cuutroncrsies of the Day. 


| ew ee oe 
* - "O a ae, ees ¥ ? 
“ ie ‘ ‘ 


ters 
ne a ‘ 


“Thor e must be also heresies among you, that thoy whiot are approved 
may be made manifest among you,”—1 Cor. xi. 19. 


BY THE 


REV. HORATIUS” BON KR; 


AUTHOR OF “NIGHT OF WEEPING,” * MORNING OF Jo¥,” 
“STORY OF GRACE,” ETC. 


NEW YORK: 


ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 
No. 285 BROADWAY. 


1851. 


4, 


“What is it all? Nothing but a self-achieved and self-wr ought 
acquisition, earned wages, human handywork. He has read hi meself 
into it, or it has been talked, preached, persuaded, or practis “1 into 
him by others; but the Holy Ghost has no share in his it mina- 
tion; he has not been taught of a... and therefore, als, 0, all 
that he has thus swallowed down, like a dead capital, bri| nging 
in no interest; the food has not been digested, and therefor)e not 
converted into juice, blood, and life, and his spikenard give no 
scent.”— Krummacher. j 


“Let us be prepared for such a spirit (of error;) let us me ot be 
stumbled if it come glowing with the message of God’s love; r, ebuk- 
ing, exhorting, encouraging ; weeping over the recital of Cl) irist’s 
sorrows. All this will Satan be likely now to do; for nothing | short 
of this will be likely to deceive the elect.”—Letter to a Friend «on the 
Religious State of the Country. 1837, P. 10. 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE, 

INTRODUCTION, A 

Lerrer I—General Principles, 

Lerrer II.—General Principles, continued, . 
Lerrer II].—God’s Will and Man’s Will, 
LETTER ‘IV.—Election, : 


Lerrer V.—Predestination and Foreknowledge, . 


Lerrer VI—The Work of Christ, 

Lerrer VII—Faith—the Gospel—Assurance, 
Lerrer VIII.—-Man’s Inability, 

Lerrrr IX.—The Spirit and the Word, 
Lrrrer X.—Present State of Religion, 


. 126 
. 145 


. 206 
. 263 


* 


‘ PREFACE 


BOVUTEE THIRD EDMPTON. 


I resent thankful that God has so prospered and 
blessed this little work, that now, two large editions 
having been exhausted, a third is called for. 

In revising it for the press, while I have felt the 
many defects which exist in it, I have been led to 
rejoice more and more in the truth for which it is 
designed to be a testimony. The errors against 
which it is pointed are, I believe, in some measure 
subsiding ; but still it is most needful that the warn- 
ing should be kept up. ‘The doctrines at stake are 
not subordinate and unessential. They are momen- 
tous and vital,—both in themselves and in their 
consequences. ‘They lie at the very foundation of 
true theology, and are imbedded in the very heart 
of the Word of God. The denial of them involves 
not only a misinterpretation of Scripture, but a mis- 
representation of Jehovah’s character. In such a 
case there can be no compromise. The man who 
denies the sovereignty of the Father, the sudstitu- 


“ 
> 


vl PREFACE. 


tionary work of the Son, the direct operation of the 
Holy Spirit upon the soul, and who expunges the 
doctrine of absolute election from the ninth of the 
Romans, may not be a Socinian himself, but he 
holds radically Socinian principles, and his followers 
will assuredly carry out these into open and broad 
Socinianism. 


Ketso, April, 1850. 


NOTE. 


I nave carefully revised these Letters, correcting 
and supplementing very considerably, so as to ren- 
der them more complete and more useful. In the 
first edition I referred but sparingly to writers upon 
the different points in question. In this edition I 
have thought it best to give what references I had 
collected, both in order to render the book more 
complete, and also for the sake of those who desire 
to study the various subjects. Still, I build nothing 
upon these in the way of authority. It is to the 
law and to the testimony that the appeal is taken. 
Let God be true, and every man a liar. 

«Buy the truth, and sell it not:” that is, get 
truth at whatever price or cost; but part with it on 
no consideration, and for no price whatsoever. 


INTRODUCTION. 


——~+- >—_—__—__ 


Tuxse Letters are little more than fragments. 
They do not aim at a complete statement of 
the truth, or a systematic arrangement of it. 
It is only a few important points that they 
touch. 

‘To have extended them and embraced a 
wider range of doctrine would not have suited 
my design. I wished to warn you against 
some of the prevailing errors of the time, lest 
ye, being “led away from your steadfastness,” 
should follow after the “ diverse and strange 
doctrines” of these last days. Hence it was 
necessary to dwell upon those errors which 
have been most prominently advanced, and to 
open up those truths which have been most 
perverted and denied. 

There may be found here and there a few 
repetitions. These I tried to avoid as much 
as possible, but could not altogether succeed. . 
I found that so close is the connection between 


Viil INTRODUCTION. 


the different truths as well as the different 
errors, that after I had discussed them in one 
place, they would rise up in a second, or even 
a third, springing now out of one doctrine, and 
again out of another. Ido not regret this. It 
may tend to show more fully the harmony of 
all the different parts of the truth, and their 
connection with each other, so that it will be 
‘seen that as all truth is linked together in its 
different parts, so is all error. How great, 
then, the danger of slighting any truth or giv- 
ing way to any error! 

My appeal is to the Word of God. What 
are the reasonings, or opinions, or inferences 
of men? What is the chaff to the wheat? 
saith the Lord. Let the Bible decide each 
question. It is for this end that I have ap- 
pended to each letter a selection of passages 
at length. 

The real question of the present day is just 
this,—Is man a totally and thoroughly de- 
praved being by nature ?—Is he ruined, help- 
less, and blind, dead in trespasses and sins? 
Many other questions have arisen, but this is 
the centre one. According to the views we 
entertain regarding this, will be our views on 
other points. It is upon the truth of this doc- 
trine that the whole Bible proceeds. And 


INTRODUCTION. 1X 


hence I would at the outset warn you strongly 
against any attempt to modify, or abate, or 
dilute the statements of Scripture on this 
point. 

Man being thoroughly depraved in nature, 
is it possible, I ask, to save him without a 
special and direct intervention of Father, Son, 
and Spirit, in his behalf? In other words, 
can he be saved in any way which does not 
involve personal election by the Father, par- 
ticular redemption by the Son, and direct, 
immediate, overcoming operation of the Holy 
Spirit? Or, putting the question in another 
form, and using the language of science—given 
a totally depraved being, is it possible to save 
that being by any plan which makes the pre- 
vious concurrence of his own will an indispen- 
sable preliminary, or which makes it neces- 
sary that he should take the first step in the 
matter of return to God? 

If you place the different errors of the day 
before you in this light, you will find that they 
all more or less directly deny or encroach upon 
the doctrine of man’s original and actual de- 
pravity. 

You will find, also, that the objections urged 
against God’s sovereignty and man’s helpless- 
ness, are just diflerent manifestations of hu- 


x INTRODUCTION. 


man pride,—the pride into which Satan 
tempted Adam, “ Ye shall be as gods,” and 
into which all his offspring have fallen along 
with him. Man will not consent to be noth- 
ing, that God alone may be atu. And it is 
curious to observe that the objections urged 
against these truths are not passages of Scrip- 
ture, but human reasonings—man’s inferences 
and opinions. ‘Take, as a specimen, the doc- 
trine of God’s sovereignty. We have many 
passages breadly declaring this, but not one 
setting forth the opposite. How, then, do men 
contrive to deny this truth? They begin to 
reason and speculate upon it; and by means 
of certain ¢nferences of their own, try to make 
it appear inconsistent with other doctrines to 
which they attach great importance. They 
say, ‘‘ Does not God invite the sinner to come 
to Christ, does he not tell us that he has no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather 
that he should turn and live: now, how can 
this be true, if He be absolutely sovereign in 
his proceedings? We cannot reconcile these 
things together, therefore we must explain 
away the passages which assert God’s sover- 
eignty and electing will. They cannot be 
understood in their plain and literal sense: 
we must devise some other meaning for them 


INTRODUCTION. Xl 


* 


which will accord with our ideas of God’s love.” 
Thus, pride of intellect, confidence in human 
reason, eagerness to establish one favorite doc- 
trine and to make everything bend to it, super- 
sede and overturn the Word of God. Scrip- 
ture is not implicitly relied upon, unless borne 
out by the systems or the syllogisms of reason 
and the conclusions of man’s poor fallen in- 
tellect. 

Cleave, then, to the Word of God. Dis- 
trust your own hearts, lean not to your own 
understandings,—but receive with meekness 
the ingrafted word. “The world through 
wisdom knew not God :” and we must stoop 
to “become fools, that we may be wise.” 
“The natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness 
unto him, neither can he know them, for they 
are spiritually discerned.””* 

It is a singular fact, that the tendencies of 
the present day are to substitute the operation 
of general laws for the direct interposition of 
God. This is Satan’s present device ; and it 
is a device which he is carrying out into all 
departments of knowledge,—philosophy, sci- 
ence, literature, and theology. Some ten or 


* See first and second chapters of First Corinthians, 


“> 


xil INTRODUCTION. 


twelve years ago, for instance, we had a speci- 
men of this in a work called “‘ My Old House, 
or the doctrine of changes,” by an individual 
taking to himself the name of a minister of 
Christ. He had conjured up a magnificent 
system of laws, a self-moving universe ; and 
though he frequently spoke of Divine Provi- 
dence, it was evident that the idea of Provi- 
dence was a disturbance of the harmony, a 
disfigurement of the graceful beauty of his 
system. Just so is it with the theology of 
some in our day. ‘They would carry on every- 
thing by means alone, by intermediate agen- 
cies ; and though they often speak of the Holy 
Spirit, yet it is very manifest that the doctrine 
of the Spirit’s work sets their system out of 
joint, and is quite an incumbrance to it. 
Their system is quite complete without any 
such agency.* This is already felt, and hence 
His direct personal operation is set aside. 
What may be the issue of this in a few years, 


* If this seems a strong statement, I just ask what is 
meant by a sort of proverbial expression of theirs, in com- 
mon use, “that man needs no more help to believe God’s 
truth, than to believe the devil’s lie.” A more complete 
denial of the Spirit’s entire work there could not be. For 
as man does not need the Spirit at all to enable him to be- 
lieve the lie, so according to them he does not need in any 
sense the Spirit to enable him to believe the truth, See this 
adverted to in Letter Ninth. 


INTRODUCTION. Xl 


we shall not venture to predict. Whether 
such a theory can long subsist with the belief 
of the Divine personality of the Spirit, or which 
of the two is likelier to give way, we shall 
leave to others to determine. 

Of late, the well-known work, “* Vestiges 
of the Natural History of Creation,” is an- 
other specimen of what we mean. In that 
work the author tells us that he has sug- 
gested “a physiological explanation of the 
development of the vegetable and animal 
kingdoms, leading to the conclusion that the 
designs of Creative wisdom were entirely 
effected by the intervention of natural laws.” 
His object is to prove that God works only 
mediately and indirectly, through his law, but 
not by the forth-putting of his power in any 
more direct manner. Now it is this very 
principle that pervades the new theology. 
Like the above writer, the new divines fre- 
quently speak of the Spirit, so as to lead 
many to suppose that they do not at all ques- 
tion his work; but they never fail to add, 
that He only works “in the use of means,” not 
by ‘‘an inward direct energy.”* Now, in re- 


* See the Correspondence of the Congregational Churches, 
p. 26, and other places. The Churches who held fast the 
truth, and remonstrated with their brethren, thus express 


2 


X1V INTRODUCTION. 


gard to the statements of the man of science, 
we are quite willing to admit that God does 
work “by the intervention of natural laws ;” 
but the question is, does He work in that 
way alone? He affirms; we deny it, and 
maintain that such doctrine is philosophic 
scepticism. So in regard to the statements 
of the divines alluded to, we are equally will- 
ing to grant that the Holy Spirit does work 
by the use of means ; but the question is, does 
he work by the use of means alone? ‘They 
affirm; we deny it. We say that he operates 
directly upon the soul, and maintain that the 
opposite of this is theological scepticism. 

Both of these are truly signs of the last 
days—signs arising in different quarters of 
the heavens, yet obviously the same in kind. 
They manifest singular wnity of design on the 
part of Satan. In both, we see his repug- 
nance to the direct will of Jehovah. In both, 


their judgment as to their opinions: “Honesty requires us 
to say that you seem to us to admit in words what you deny 
in fact,’ p.10. Again they remark on the ambiguous and 
equivocal language used by their correspondents—* It is the 
hackneyed subterfuge employed in all ages by those who 
have held the errors that we are opposing, to say that the 
influence of mere means is the influence of the Spirit, since 
the means have proceeded from and express the mind of 
the Spirit, and thus they have sought to cheat the unwary 
with words, spreading the belief that they have admitted the 
Spirit's influence, when in fact they have denied it.” 


INTRODUCTION. XV 


his object is to separate men from Him in 
whom they live, and move, and have their be- 
ing. In both, he is seeking to make the crea- 
ture’s communication with the Creator less 
personal and direct; to set aside the necessity 
of His ever-interposing agency; to impugn 
the equity of making the creature thoroughly 
dependent upon the all-regulating will and 
pleasure of the Creator; to deny the great 
Bible truth which is the very basis of re- 
demption, that separate from God, there can 
be no stability for the creature, and that it 
is only by the grace of His own continually- 
imparted power that the creature can be holy, 
or even Je at all. 

Were these new theories correct, most mel- 
ancholy were our case! For where would be 
the blessedness that flows from our direct 
dealings with God in prayer and praise? Are 
prayer and praise to be mere messages, sent 
by us to a far-distant Being, whose feelings 
and ours can never intermingle? Or are they 
to be the close, real, personal converse of one 
friend with another, face to face? Admit the 
modern theory, and direct communion with 
God must be a thing unknown. For, if God 
only communicates with us through means, 
then we only communicate with him through 


XV1 INTRODUCTION. 


the same. The far-off influence of the moon 
upon the tides of ocean is, in such a case, the 
true emblem of God’s operations upon Us, and 
the responsive but cold heaving of the billows 
upward would be the only figure of our inter- 
course with Him. The living God and the 
living soul could never meet and embrace 
each other in love. ‘They could only carry on 
their intercourse by signs, and means, and in- 


fluences.* 
But let these remarks suffice as an Intro- 


duction. I put these Letters into the hands 


* «The distinction which is sometimes made, that in a 
miracle God is immediately working, and, in other events, is 
leaving it to the laws which he has established to work, can- 
not at all be admitted, for it has its root in a dead mechan- 
‘cal view of the universe, which lies altogether remote from 
the truth. The clock-maker makes his clock, and leaves it ; 
the ship-builder builds and launches his ship, and others nay- 
igate it; but the world is no curious piece of mechanism 
which its Master makes and then dismisses from his hands, 
only from time to time reviewing and repairing it; but, as 
our Lord says, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, 
‘he upholdeth all things by the word of his power’ And 
to speak of ‘laws of God, ‘laws of nature, may become to 
us a language altogether deceptive, and hiding the deeper 
reality from our cyes. Laws of God exist only for us. It is 
a will of God for himself, That will indeed, being the will 
of highest wisdom and love, excludes all wilfulness, is a will 
upon which we can securely count ; from the past expressions 
of it, we can presume its future, and so we rightfully call it 
alaw. But still from moment to moment it is a will; each 
law, as we term it, of nature, is only that which we have 
learned of nature concerning this will in that particular re- 
gion of its activity.’"—Z'rench on the Miracles, pp. 9, 10. 


INTRODUCTION. Xvi 


of you, my dear people, that you may be 
helped to understand the truth of God, and 
may be kept steadfast therein. You know 
that these are the very truths which, during 
these eight years of my ministry among you, 
I have ever sought to teach you. My desire 
is to lay before you, in a more abiding form, 
the substance of my teaching from the pul- 
pit. In the freeness of the glorious gospel, I 
have endeavored to instruct you in many 
ways; and I would not that you should be 
left unwarned against the errors which some 
are introducing amongst us, under pretext 
of preaching that gospel more freely; ‘lest 
Satan should get an advantage over us, for 
we are not ignorant of his devices.” 

‘‘ Little children, it is the last time; and, 
as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, 
even now there are many antichrists, whereby 
we know that it is the last time.” 

‘Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast 
which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” 

2% 


ot fans. cob hirr tt Per wie 
RaAP Mle ty dhe url haere 
Wee}. etre ; j 


‘ 
- 


Jas b Bars Hive 


LETTER I. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 


“ Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For itis a 
good thing that the heart be established with grace.’’—Hen. xiii. 9. 


My pear Frienp, 

You seem bewildered amid the opinions of 
the day, almost as much as you would be in 
the midst of a company where each spoke in 
a different tongue. The difficulty of judging 
what is truth seems increasing, instead of dis- 
appearing. You know not what to think, nor 
which way to turn, in order to discover who is 
right, or where certainty is to be found; so 
many novelties stagger and amaze you. ‘There 
seem to be good men on both sides, and that 
perplexes you still more. 

You long for peace amid the jar of these 
unruly elements, and for stability amid these 
shifting sands. Yet rest comes not. 'There 
is no end of change. One novelty begets 
another, and that, in its turn, becomes equally 
productive. One error requires another to 


20 LETTER I. 


maintain it, this second must have a third or 
fourth to lean upon. One false step leads to 
twenty, or perhaps a hundred more. Who 
knows where all this is to end ?* 

The changes are numerous. Every month 
produces some new doctrine, or at least some 
modification of the old. Fickle minds he in 
wait for something new. As the edge of one 
novelty wears down, another must be provided 
in its place to keep up the unhealthy excite- 
ment. Thus fickleness becomes doubly fickle 
by being gratified; novelties multiply, and the 
sore evil spreads. Men do not tremble at the 
thought of falling into error. ‘Io change opin- 
ions upon some casual impulse, or some shal- 
low catch of an argument, is thought but a 
light thing; as if the falling into error were 
no great matter, instead of being a fearful 
calamity; or as if the entrance upon truth 
were an indifferent occurrence, instead of be- 
ing the occasion of deep and solemn joy. 
Many who but lately were high Calvinists 
are now Arminians of the lowest grade, pass- 
ing through the different levels with the most 
singular facility and flippancy, as easily and 


* “They want something new, something which has a pe- 
culiar relish; old things have grown wearisome to them.” 


—Dr. Merle D Aubigne on the character of the theologian. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 21 


airily as the musician runs up and down the 
scale with the finger or the voice. 

How is all this? you will ask. It might 
be enough to answer that it is written, ‘‘ There 
shall come in the last days perilous times, 
when men shall be heady, high-minded, ever 
learning, and never able to come to the knowl- 
edge of the truth ;”* ‘‘ when they shall not en- 
dure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts 
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having 
itching ears, and shall turn away their ears 
from the truth.”t But let us inquire a little 
farther. ‘There seem to be chiefly three rea- 
sons for this; first, the soul is not at rest; sec- 
ondly, the conscience is not at work; thirdly, 
there is little “trembling at the word.” I 
might refer to others, but these are the prom- 
inent ones. 

1. The soul is not at rest—There is a rest- 
ing-place for the weary,—deep and broad, im- 
movable and sure,—Jesus, the sin -bearing 
Lamb of God. But these unstable ones have 
not reached it. They speak much of it, talk 
as if they alone knew anything about it, as if 
none could state the gospel so freely as they ; 
yet it is manifest that they have not yet real- 


* 2 Tim. iii. 4, 7, +2 Tim. iy. 3. 


22 : LETTER I. 


ized that. stable peace which comes from the 
knowledge of the living Jesus. They are not 
at rest; and till the sowl be at rest, the mind 
cannot. It will always be making vain fetch- 
es after new opinions, in the hope that this or 
that new doctrine may perchance bring to it 
the peace which it has hitherto sought in vain. 
Be assured of this, that a mind not at rest be- 
speaks a sowl not at rest; and whatever men 
may affirm to you about their assurance or 
their peace, if you see them ever on the watch, 
ever on the wing for some new opinion, you 
may be sure there is little rest within. In 
many cases it may be vanity, attachment to 
a sect, desire for proselytizing others, or sim- 
ply self-will; but in most cases I have no 
doubt that it is really in quest of peace that 
these poor souls are stretching out their weary 
hands, ready to embrace anything that will 
fill the dreary void, and pour over their souls 
that settled calm and sunshine, to which, in 
spite of all their profession, they are really 
strangers. ‘They are not fastened to the an- 
chor cast within the veil, or else they have let 
go their hold; and hence they are drifting 
from place to place in quest of anchorage, but 
unable to find it. They try, by means of 
change, to allay the fever and fretfulness of an 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 23 


unsettled spirit, yet all the while they boast 
of their assurance, and perhaps censure you 
sorely if you cannot speak their language and 
assume their tone. 

2. The conscience ts not at work.—The 
conscience has far more to do in receiving or 
rejecting opinions than many suppose. It 
should stand like a sentinel at the door of the 
mind, to try all truth before it enter. A ten- 
der conscience is cautious, and oftentimes very 
slow ia admitting truth, and, on this very ac- 
count, most tenacious in holding it fast. 
Hence, a child of God, with a tender con- 
science, is often much slower in receiving 
truth than others. For it has to do with 
conscience in his case; it has to pass into the 
mind under a watchful eye, which fears to be 
rash and hasty, and trembles at the thought 
of giving entrance to error. A conscience 
asleep, or seared, or secure, makes quick work. 
A specious objection is presented to some old. 
truth, or a plausible argument in favor of 
some new opinion, and, forthwith, the former 
is thrust out, the latter taken in, without any 
resistance, or delay, or trembling on the part 
of conscience, or any light and guidance from 
God, sought and obtained upon the matter. 

Nothing is more needed in our inquiries 


24 LETTER I. 


after truth, than the watchful jealousy of a 
tender conscience. Yet how little is there 
of conscience at all in these last days! ‘There 
is what is called independence of mind, or 
thinking for one’s self; but that is not con- 
science. There is a spurning of creeds, and 
catechisms, and all olden theology, but that is 
not conscience. It is not waiting upon God 
for teaching. It is trusting our own heart, 
‘ and taking the guidance of our own eyes. It 
is not ‘ceasing from man,” but the mere pre- 
tence of it. It is ceasing from one man in 
order to trust in another, from one age to trust 
in another, from one book to trust in another, 
from one heart to trust in another, and that 
other perhaps the most deceitful of all,—our 
own. Hence there is such running after 
novelty, such readiness to receive any plau- 
sible error, such instability of opinion and 
fickleness of spirit; such self-willedness and 
headstrong precipitancy of judgment; such 
high-mindedness, pride, and censoriousness of 
others; so little thought of our own foolish- 
ness and fallibility ; so slender a sense of the 
awful responsibility we:are under to God, for 
what we believe for ourselves, and propagate 
among others, as his precious and eternal 
truth. 


ee 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 25 


3. There ts little trembling at the word.— 
It is a solemn thing for man to be spoken to 
by God, the God of heaven and earth. Each 
word coming from His lips should be listened 
to and received with profoundest reverence. 
‘The Lord has spoken” is enough for us. 
There is no room for questions or cavil where 
His voice is heard. Each word in the Bible 
is to be dealt with as a sacred thing, a vessel 
of the sanctuary, not to be lightly handled or 
profanely mutilated, but to be received just as 
it stands. There may be passages difficult to 
reconcile, doctrines which apparently conflict 
with each other. But let us beware of smooth- 
ing down, or hammering in pieces, one class of 
passages, in order to bring about a reconcilia- 
tion. Let us be content to take them as they 
are. We shall gain nothing by explaining 
them away. God has spoken them. God has 
placed them there. ‘They cannot really be at 
variance with each other. The day is coming 
when we shall fully understand their har- 
mony. Let us wait till then, and meanwhile 
tremble at the thought of misinterpreting or 
distorting so much as one jot or tittle. Most 
assuredly we shall not bring about the agree- 
ment in any such way. We are only wi- 


3 


26 LETTER I. 


dening the breach, and opening out new dif- 
ficulties.* 

If I am asked, how can you preach a free 
gospel, and yet believe in election? I answer, 
I believe in both, and preach both, because I 
find both in the Bible. I have no authority 
for preaching an unconditional gospel but what 
I find in the Bible; and I have the same au- 
thority for preaching an unconditional personal 
election. God has told me that both are true; 
and woe be to me if I profanely attempt to 
mutilate either the one or the other. If one 
man refuses to take the simple meaning of 
election,” another may refuse to take the 
simple meaning of “gospel.” And were I 
called upon to say which is the worse, the 
more profane of the two, I should say the for- 
mer. I should, indeed, tremble at the thought 
of denying either election or the gospel; but I 
confess that I think the denial of the latter a 
less direct, and a less daring insult to the sov- 
erelgn majesty of Jehovah. It would be a 
shutting out of his grace, a closing up of all 
the manifestations of his character which have 

* “The mind of that man has a strong bias to scepticism, 
who insists on having every difficulty satisfactorily explained 
before he will apply the sacred truths to himself.”"—Henry 


(of America) Letters regarding the difficulties of an anxious 
inquirer ; Letter LX. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. py 


come out to us since Adam sinned; and it 
would be drawing a dark cloud over our eter- 
nal prospects,—but it would not be taking the 
ceins of government out of his hands,—it would 
not be the usurpation of his throne,—it would 
not be giving the right hand of fellowship to 
atheism. 

But there is no need of any such compari- 
son. Perhaps it was wrong to make it. I 
have done so, however, in order that you may 
be led to see that election belongs to the high- 
est and most sacred order of truths—that it’ is 
not a doctrine to be concealed and muffled as 
if we were either ashamed or afraid of it, but to 
be firmly held, and faithfully preached, whether 
men will hear or forbear. Mere philosophy 
might tell men that, if there be a God, he must 
be entirely and absolutely sovereign in all 
things. Mere philosophy might expose the 
shallowness and selfishness of those who tram- 
ple on God’s free will, in order to establish 
man’s—even if theology and Scripture were 
silent on the matter. 

Why do I believe in a free gospel? Is it 
because reason has revealed it? Is it because 
I find it suits me best? No. It 1s because 
God has declared it ; that is my sole authority. 
Why do I believe in election? Just because 


28 LETTER I. 


God has made it known. I may find that 
reason confirms this. I may see that there can 
be no really free gospel without election; but 
still my ground for believing it is because I 
find it most plainly revealed. 

You can only get rid of election by getting 
rid of the Bible. And hence you will find, 
among those who deny election and the work 
of Christ for his church, a great dislike at 
those passages of Scripture which allude to 
these topics. They pass them by, they turn 
away from them, they are anery if another 
even quotes them, though without a comment. 
Now I ask, would they do and feel thus, if 
they believed that these passages really con- 
tained the meaning which they put upon them? 
If these passages are quite in harmony with 
their views, why do they shrink from quoting 
them, or hearing them quoted? Is not this 
the plainest of all proofs, that they feel that 
theirs is not the honest interpretation? Does 
it not show that they themselves are secretly 
persuaded that these passages do teach uncon- 
ditional election, and the absolute sovereignty 
of Jehovah? They feel that they have twisted 
them from their plain sense, and that the mere 
reading of them is enough to expose their dis- 
tortions. They feel that they have not dealt 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 29 


fairly with the word of God, and that their 
one-sided dealings cannot bear the light of 
day. 

Let us learn to ‘tremble at the word.” Let 
us take it plainly and honestly in its simple 
sense. Let us not be afraid of its apparent 
contradictions. Let us not think ourselves 
capable of reconciling and harmonizing all its 
declarations. We see here but through a glass 
darkly. ‘he day of light and harmony is com- 
ing. All shall then be plain. God will solve 
our difficulties. Meanwhile, let us reverence 
every jot and tittle of his holy word. Let us 
trust our own hearts and reasonings less, aud 
God’s word more. Let us not be so anxiously 
asking, how can this be? how can we recon- 
cile God’s sovereignty with man’s responsibill- 
ty? how can we harmonize the Spirit’s free 
agency with man’s free agency? Let us leave 
difficulties in the hands of God; and let us 
beware of making those difficulties greater by 
our miserable attempts to reach at things too 
high for us, or our more miserable efforts to 
pervert and mutilate the simple word of the 
God who cannot lie. 

I do not mean, by any of these remarks, to 
imply that there is not the most perfect har- 
mony between all the different doctrines taught 

3* 


30° LETTER I. 


us in the Bible. Nor do I mean to say that 
this harmony is incapable of being discerned 
here. I believe, on the one hand, that all is 
harmony in the truths of God, and that that 
harmony is discernible and demonstrable even 
now. But still there is an apparent jar. ‘To 
a certain extent we can reconcile every one of 
the supposed discordances. Yet there are dif: 
ficulties connected with them which no theory 
can solve, and which will remain difficulties 
till the great day. To attempt to remove or 
reconcile these by denying the plain and natu- 
ral sense of Scripture is sinful and pernicious. 
It accomplishes nothing. It only takes away 
one difhiculty to replace it with a greater. 
There are doubtless other causes of the evils 
over which we mourn; but these are the three 
chief roots of bitterness. ‘To these may be 
traced more of the manifold errors of our day 
than many may be willing to allow. Till these 
are removed, I have little hope that the insta- 
bility of the times will die out, or cease to op- 
erate for the, injury and subversion of the truth. 
Till the soul gets rest—not the name, but the 
reality—and till the conscience is awake and 
sensitive, and till the Word of God is reve- 
renced and honestly interpreted, I see small 
prospect of an end to these changes, if, indeed, 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. au 


we may venture to hope that such can be until 
the Lord shall come. 

Yet be not amazed. Jehovah changes not; 
neither does his word. It abideth forever, firm 
as the rocks of earth, undimmed as the azure 
of the heavens. Seek unto God for light, and 
to his Word for wisdom. Take his Holy Spirit 
as your teacher. Heed not the jar of men’s 
warring opinions. Let God be true, and every 
man a liar. The Bible is the Bible still. If 
any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God. 
Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and 
ye know all things. 

Do not be alarmed, as if all this were some 
new thing in the earth. Many speak as if 
truth had never arisen among men till they 
arose to teach it. But the errors of the day 
are those of former times. ‘They have shot up 
once and again, and been so often silenced and 
put to shame. They are old and worn-out 
errors, though, perhaps, more daringly set forth 
now than heretofore; for the time seems at 
hand in which “the earth shall reel to and fro 
. like a drunkard,” and when false teachers and 
prophets shall deceive, if it were possible, the 
very elect. Yet do not suppose the attain- 
ment of truth to be a hopeless thing. ‘ The 
Son of Ged hath come, and hath given us an 


32 LETTER I. 


understanding that we may know him that is 
true.” It was He who taught the multitudes 
in the days of his flesh; and it is he who teach- 
eth the multitude still. If he teaches not, all 
is vain and false; if he teaches, all is true, all 
is blessed. Light and knowledge are with 
him; and how willing is he that all that light 
and knowledge should be yours! Learn of me, 
he says, for [am meek and lowly ; and to what 
teacher can a foolish, erring soul betake him- 
self, like this meek and lowly one, who can 
have compassion on the ignorant, and on them 
that are out of the way? He received gifts for 
men, when he ascended on high, even for the 
rebellious; and to whom can you go, save to 
him who has the Holy Spirit, with all his gifts 
and graces so freely to bestow ? 
I am yours, &c. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“Holding faith and a good conscience; which some hay- 
ing put away, concerning faith haye made shipwreck.”— 
1 Tim. i. 19. 

“Of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead 
captive silly women, laden with sins, led away with divers 
lusts; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowl- 
edge of the truth.”——2 Tim. iii. 6. 

“The time will come when they will not endure sound 
doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to them- 
selves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away 
from the truth, and shall be turned into fables.”—2 Tim. iv. 3. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 33 


“There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers.”— 
Titus i. 10. 

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and 
fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the 
sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in 
wait to deceive.”—Eph. iv. 14. 


LETTER II. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES, CONTINUED. 


“Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou ? 
or thy work, He hath no hands ?’’—IsaiAu xly, 9. 


My pear FRienp, 


Having stated what appears to me to be the 
origin of the theological opinions that are now 
trying to make way among us, I would briefly 
advert to some of the principles out of which 
they spring. I might at once have gone on to 
discuss the different points or opinions them- 
selves; but I think it may be useful to notice 
some of the principles which they involve, or 
what may be called the general aspect and es- 
sence of these opinions. We have already seen 
the sow! in which they flourish,—we shall forth- 
with proceed to advert to the branches and 
fruit ; but, before doing so, it may be well to 
call attention to the roots of the tree. 

Speaking generally of the new doctrines, 
and of the movement which has taken place in 
connection with them, we may affirm several 
things. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 35 


1. Man has too much to do with all this,— 
God too little. We hear much of what man 
does, and can do, and ought to do, but by no 
means so much of what God is doing, and has 
purposed to do. Man’s agency stands very 
prominently out to view,—God’s arm and 
power are hidden. It seems almost as if man 
would thrust aside God, take the reins of gov- 
ernment out of his hands, and be to himself a 
god. Man gets much credit for doing and say- 
ing great things,—God gets little glory. The 
position of the sinner, as @ mere receiver of 
salvation, and every blessing connected with it 
in this life or the next, is denied; and he is 
exalted to be a co-operator with God in the 
matter of salvation. He begins the work by 
becoming willing, and God ends it. He does 
what he can, and God does all the rest. He 
is represented as helping God to save him; or 
rather, we should say, God is represented as 
helping man to save himself! In the old cre- 
ation, God did all; but in the new creation, 
as being a far more stupendous work, he re- 
quires the assistance of man,—nay, he commits 
half the work, at least the most difficult and 
momentous part of it, to man himself! If 
some of the new theories be true, God is not 
all in all, but is, on the contrary, considerably 


36 LETTER It. 


indebted to man; and man, in like manner, 
is not a little indebted to himself. In all this, 
we hear still the whisperings of the old ser- 
pent, ‘“ Ye shall be as gods ;” and we see man, 
like his first father, aspiring to the Divine 
prerogative. _ 

2. Man’s way, and not God’s, is taken as 
the guide of action? God has a way, a plan, 
a purpose, well and wisely ordered. This plan, 
which he acts by, he has revealed, and he 
expects us to take it as our guide in all our 
schemes. This plan touches and rules things 
both great and small,—nations, communities, 
churches, with all their movements. Man’s 
wisdom would be to search out this plan, and 
shape all his movements accordingly. Inat- 
tention to this must not only lead to fruitless 
efforts and unscriptural schemes, but to much 
false religion, self-will, formality, excitement, 
and sectarianism. (God’s design is to glorify 
himself,—to show to the whole universe what 
an infinitely glorious Being he is. This is his 
mighty end in all he does and says—to man- 
ifest himself and show forth his glory. For 
this, sin was allowed to enter the world; for 
this, the ‘‘ Word was made flesh ;” for this, the 
Son of God shed his blood and died; for this, 
He is taking out of this world a people to him- 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 37 


self; to this all things are tending, and in this 
shall they be consummated ere long. Noth- 
ing less than this does God propose to himself 
in his doings; and nothing less than this 
should we ever make our aim and end. All 
things are but means to this one end. Even 
the incarnation of his own Son is but means 
toward an end, but not the end itself. The 
ingathering of his chosen ones is the means, 
not the end. The salvation of Israel, the con- 
version of the world, and the restitution of all 
things in the day of the coming kingdom, shall 
be the means, but not the end. ‘ For of him, 
and through him, and to him are all things; 
to whom be glory forever.” 

Whenever we overlook this, we go wrong, 
and our efforts are but the beating of the air. 
When we make an end of anything lower than 
this, we are sure to fall into error; because, 
when we fix on ends of our own, we are cer- 
tain to adopt means of our own. ‘Take the 
case of the conversion of asoul. We cannot be 
too much in earnest about the saving even of 
one lost one. I believe we know almost noth- 
ing of that deep compassion and yearning love 
for a dying world which, as saints, we ought 
ever to feel.* Yet still it is quite possible to 

* What an example, and, at the same time, what a re- 


4 


38 LETTER I. 


err in this matter,—not in being too earnest, 
but in being so intent on having men converted 
as to lose sight of the mighty end for which 
this is to be sought. Hence the glory of God 
is hidden from view ; I do not say denied, but 
hidden from view. And what is the conse- 
quence? We cease to look at conversion in 
the light in which God regards it, as the way 
in which he is to be glorified. We think if 
we can but get men converted, it does not so 
much matter how. Our whole anxiety is, not 
how shall we secure the glory of Jehovah, 
but how shall we multiply conversions? ‘The 
whole current of our thoughts and anxieties 
takes this direction. We cease to look at both 
things together ; we think it enough to keep 
the one of them alone in our eye; and the 
issue is, that we soon find ourselves pursuing 
ways of our own. Bent upon compassing a 
particular object, we run recklessly forward, 
thinking that, as the object is right, anything 
buke in regard to this is conveyed to us in Edwards’ state- 
ment of the feelings of some during a time of revival. 
“There was found an universal benevolence to mankind, 
with a longing to embrace the whole world in the arms of 
pity and love. Sometimes a disposition was felt to a life 
given up to mourning alone in a wilderness over a lost and 
miserable world; compassion towards them being often to 
that degree that would allow of no support or rest but in 


going to God and pouring out the soul in prayer for them,” 
Works, vol, i. p. 877. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 39 


that can contribute towards the securing of it 
cannot be wrong. We thus come to measure 
the correctness of our plans, simply by their 
seeming to contribute to our favorite aim. We 
estimate the soundness of our doctrine, not 
from its tendency to exalt and glorify Jehovah, 
but entirely by the apparent facility with 
which it enables us to get sinners to turn from 
their ways. The question is not asked con- 
cerning any doctrine, Is ¢¢ tn itself a God-hon- 
oring truth, but will it afford us facilities for 
converting souls? Will it make conversion a 
more easy thing,—a thing which a man may 
accomplish for himself and by himself? Will 
it make conversion less dependent upon God, 
and more dependent upon man? Will it 
make a man’s salvation to hinge less pure- 
ly and solely upon the will of Jehovah, and 
more entirely upon the will of the sinner him- 
self? Will it enable us to meet such a text 
as—‘‘No man can come unto me unless the 
Father draw him;” ‘Ye have not chosen 
me, but I have chosen you;” ‘Can the 
Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his 
spots ?” 

The man who thinks of nothing but how he 
may (as he calls it) get sinners converted, is 
continually apt to take these devious courses. 


40 LETTER II. 


Impelled but by one force, in one direction, 
from one motive, he soon errs and loses him- 
self in mazy thickets, which, as he plunges on, 
thicken into deeper intricacy and darkness. 
Such texts as these present themselves and cross 
his path. Intent on but one thing, he either 
shuns them or treads them down. ‘They are 
incompatible with his one idea,—they seem to 
impede him in the pursuit of his one end. 
And therefore they must be got quit of. It 
does not occur to ask, Am I not looking at ob- 
jects in a partial light, from too low a position, 
and with a false bias which unfits me for com- 
ing to a right judgment ? Were such a ques- 
tion but asked and answered as it ought, there 
would be less of one-sided doctrines, mis-shapen 
systems, got up to accomplish a favorite and 
engrossing object. Were the glory of the infi- 
nite Jehovah seen in its true light, as the 
mightiest and most majestic of all objects and 
ends, not to the exclusion of other matters, but 
simply to their regulation and subordination,— 
then should we be saved the pain of seeing 
men rushing headlong over Scripture and 
reason, striking out strange by-paths of their 
own, in their eager pursuit of an object on 
which they have fixed an exclusive and par- 
tial eye. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 41 


I do not wonder at men, who either have 
lost sight of the glory of Jehovah or have made 
it a subordinate object, or who think that if 
they can only get men converted, God will 
look after his own glory,—I do not wonder at 
them being fretted when such texts as those 
I have referred to, confront them in their 
schemes for facilitating conversion, and mak- 
ing man the converter of himself. A man with 
only one object in view, and that not the high- 
est, must be stumbled at such declarations, 
and feel at a loss to reconcile them with others. 
But the man who has set his heart upon the 
glory of his God, and views everything in re- 
lation to that, feels no such difficulty. He 
takes Scripture as he finds it. He has no need 
to explain away even one verse or clause of 
the Book of Truth. He enters into the pur- 
pose of God; he looks at things in the light 
in which God looks at them. He tries to see 
them as they might have appeared in the long 
past eternity,—or as they will yet appear in 
the eternity to come. And he finds all har- 
mony. ‘There is no conflict, no discord at all. 
One class of passages show him the yearnings 
of God’s heart over sinful man. They show 
him that God is in earnest in beseeching men 


to come to him; that he really means what he 
4* 


42 LETTER II. 


says when he makes proposals of friendship 
and reconciliation to them. They show him 
that the sinner’s unbelief is the cause of his 
damnation ; and that if he is lost, it is not be- 
cause God would not be reconciled to him, but 
because he would not be reconciled to God. 
They show him that the water of life is free ; 
free to every man; free to every sinner as he 
stands; and that he is invited to partake, 
without*price or preparation, not only although 
he is a sinner, but just because he is a sinner. 
They show him these things, and in them he 
greatly rejoices. He does not wish to abate 
one jot of the blessed freeness, or cloud by one 
restriction the joy of the glad tidings. No. 
He takes these passages just as he finds them. 
He sees how suitable they are to one of the 
objects on which his heart is set,—I mean the 
conversion of souls. But then he finds another 
class of passages which follow out another line 
of truth. They will run him up at once into 
the purpose and will of Jehovah as the fount 
and cause of everything great or small. ‘They 
are quite explicit; just as much so as the 
other. He cannot explain them away. They 
are so plain and simple, that a child may see 
what they mean. He has no wish to take 
them in any other than their obvious sense. 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 43 


He sees in them that which exactly meets his 
own feelings, and coincides with his view of 
God’s glory as being the paramount and all- 
regulating end in all the movements of the 
universe. He sees in them not a restriction 
upon the gospel, but the simple statement of 
an infinite truth—a truth not arbitrarily thrown 
across the sinner’s path as a stumbling-block, 
but a truth necessarily arising from the fact 
that God is God, the Creator, and that man is 
man, the creature, the sinner. That truth is 
just this, that God’s will is the law of the uni- 
verse,—his glory the object and end both in 
creation and in redemption—his everlasting 
purpose the mighty and all-perfect mould in 
which all things are cast, and from which they 
take their shape and fashion from first to last. 
In such passages he sees God pointing out to 
men the true end which they ought to have in 
view, and by which all their movements are to 
be regulated. In them he sees God setting a 
fence and guard around his own majesty, lest 
men should imagine that their will is everything, 
their salvation God’s only end, and that in the 
gospel He has thrown the reins of this fallen 
earth into the sinner’s hands, telling him that 
everything depends upon his own will and 
power, and that he has but to put forth that 


44 LETTER Il. 


will and power in order to save himself, and 
restore a ruined world to the perfection of its 
former beauty. 

Whenever we lose sight of God’s great end 
in all things—his own glory,—we fall into a 
wrong track. We go wrong in judging of 
doctrine; we go wrong in the formation of 
our plans; we go wrong in the bent of our 
efforts; we miscalculate the relative impor- 
tance of different truths. Thus our whole 
tone of feeling, judging, and working, is low- 
ered and contracted. Zeal for our own ways 
and opinions takes the place of higher aims. 
A revival is got up to propagate these opinions, 
or to prop up asect. Sectarianism and selfish 
exclusiveness steal in. Egotism, boasting, 
censoriousness are introduced. Religion be- 
comes an instrument for working out our own 
views and ends. ‘T'he most solemn and spirit- 
ual things are spoken of with levity and irrev- 
erence. Conversion soon becomes the same as 
the holding of certain opinions, and the mark 
of an unconverted man is, that he rejects these 
opinions. Being loosened from their anchor- 
age, men drift away without a guide. One 
doctrine after another is embraced, and change 
succeeds change, as month follows month. To 
make conversion easy is the great object ; and 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 45 


to accomplish this particular end, favorite pas- 
sages are dwelt upon incessantly, doctrine 
after doctrine smoothed over, and text after 
text pared away. 

And after all this toil and change, what is 
the issue? Is anything gained? Nothing. 
Scripture has been perverted, man all but dei- 
fied, and God all but dethroned,—byt has any 
difficulty been cleared off, have contradictions 
been harmonized? No. One class of diffi- 
culties has been substituted for another, that is 
all. The new system gets quit of the alleged 
contradictions of the old, only to substitute 
others of its own of a more serious kind. If 
for instance I deny that Christ is truly God, I 
certainly get quit of the mystery of the incar- 
nation, but I land myself in endless scriptural 
difficulties, for the passages which declare his 
divinity are numerous and explicit.* In like 
manner, by denying the direct operation of the 
Holy Spirit upon the soul of the sinner, 1 get 
quit of certain apparent difficulties . about 
man’s free agency and responsibility, but I 


* If, to take another instance, I deny the pre-millennial 
advent, and personal reign of Christ, I rid myself of some 
things which I find hard to be understood, or even conceived 
of, things which appear to some low, carnal, derogatory to 
Christ,—but I call up a whole host of scriptural difficulties 
which are far more formidable. 


46 LETTER It. 


substitute for these most serious difficulties 
as to man’s utter depravity, and as to the per- 
sonal agency and operation of the Spirit. But 
old difficulties are to some minds so stale and 
threadbare as not to be endurable. New diffi- 
culties recommend themselves by their fresh- 
ness and novelty. ‘T'o get quit of a single old 
one, someswould welcome a hundred new ones. 

From such roots many other evils spring, 
which I cannot here enumerate. There is 
often manifested a narrow-mindedness, a con- 
traction of the spiritual eye, and a limitation 
of the spiritual horizon, which is apt to end in 
engrossing selfishness. Hence, we often see 
ereater zeal to proselytize to a sect than to 
win men to Christ. We see great activity 
displayed in making known and forcing upon 
others the points on which the difference ex- 
ists, and much less concern about propagating 
those in which all believers are agreed. We 
hear much talking about doctrines and pecu- 
liarities, little about Christ himself. We find 
conversation turning too much upon the spirit- 
ual state of others, and that often in flippancy 
or censoriousness,—this one being pronounced 
unconverted, that other converted,—this one 
being mentioned as having joined the sect, or 
that other as being inclined to join it, or that 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 47 


other again as standing aloof. We find dis- 
cussions arising as to whom this one was 
awakened under, or whom this other, as if 
this were a matter of any moment, provided 
the soul be saved, and Jesus glorified. We 
find people extolling the exploits of their min- 
isters, or the doings of their sect, numbering 
up the conversions that took place at this or 
that revival, under this or that minister, in 
this or that town or village. 

How much is there in all this of selfishness 
and sectarianism ! how little of simple zeal for 
the glory of the name of Jesus! <A taste for 
religious gossip, in which the spiritual state 
of others is freely canvassed, criticized, and 
decided on, is a very different thing from that 
relish for the things of God and Christ, which 
shows itself in the saint by the delight which 
he takes in truly spiritual converse on things 
pertaining to God and his glory, to Jesus and 
his love-—I am, yours, &c. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“Vain man would be wise, though man be born like a 
wild ass’s colt.”—Job xi. 12. 

“The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea, even the 
wicked for the day of evil.”—Provy. xvi. 4, 

“Cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. 
Behold as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my 
hand, O house of Israel.”—Jer, xviii. 6, 


48 LETTER IL. 


“Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? 
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast 
thou made me thus ?’—Rom. ix. 20. 


NOTE. 


As a specimen of the way in which plain texts are twisted, 
we refer to Rom. ix. 15, “1 will have mercy on whom I will 
have mercy,” &c. This they venture to translate, “I will 
have mercy on whom I can have mercy,’—that is, “I will 
have mercy on those on whom I can consistently with right- 
eousness have mercy.” Now [ say without hesitation, that 
such is not the meaning of the Greek words. Men have 
wrung this meaning out of them because it was the only way 
in which they could destroy their explicit testimony to Jeho- 
vah’s sovereignty. But no scholar will ever say that such 
is their meaning. If any doubt existed as to this, Paul re- 
moves it completely in the 18th verse, by giving us his com- 
ment upon them, “therefore hath he mercy on whom he 
WILLETH,” not on whom he can merely, but oa whom he 
winters. Even though they might succeed in thrusting can 
into the words of Moses, they must admit that Paul is ex- 
plicit enough. And will not his testimony suffice? Lest, 
however, our statement should be suspected, we add higher 
authority, which is beyond suspicion. Grotius, an old com- 
mentator, whose dislike to Calvinism makes his testimony 
the more impartial, translates it exactly as in our version, 
and illustrates the statement by referring to the way in which 
kings issue orders according to their pleasure, without mak- 
ing known their reasons. Limborch, also, another Arminian 
divine, takes precisely the same view. Wolfius, another di- 
vine of the same class, when referring to one critic who 
wished to substitute can for will, makes this remark—* I 
would not, however, depart from the interpretation of the 
Septuagint, which Paul has here approved of, and which the 
connection of Paul’s discourses seems to require.” I observe 
also, that a modern Neologian, or at least semi-Neologian 
critic, Kuttner, takes the same view. He denies the doctrine 
of personal and unconditional election, maintaining, with 
others of his own stamp, that it is a national election that 
is spoken of, yet he has no hesitation about the meaning of 


GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 49 


the 15th verse. The substitution of the can for the will does 
not seem to have occurred to him. He interprets honestly, 
aud as a scholar. The sense, says he, is, “I will show kind- 
ness to whom I will to show kindness,” benefictis afficiam 
cui benefacere volo (see his Hypomnemata upon the New 
Testament, p. 243.) I might have quoted other Arminian 
commentators to the same effect. But I need not. These 
are enough. We see what honest men and sholars think of 
the passage. Fyen when wishing to bend it to their theory, 
they cannot. Even when alluding to the very inter pretation 
now sought to be put upon it, they refuse to allow it to be 
either possible or tenable. They at once set aside the can, 
as not only not admissible according to the rules of criticism, 
but as positively discountenanced by the apostle’s interpreta- 
tion of the words of Moses. It is somewhat strange to see 
the Arminians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 
and the Neologians of the nineteenth, united in this view, 
and the authors of the new theology setting themselves 
against it. Are the latter better critics and scholars than 
the former? No man will assert that. Of criticism and 
scholarship they seem to know almost nothing; yet, with 
strange self-confidence, they insist upon trying their hand at 
new translations, and boldly asserting them to be true and 
right in the face of all critics and scholars, ancient and mod- 
ern. How is this? These old critics, though Arminian, 
were really scholars, and had some reputation to sustain, 
which might have been materially damaged had they ven- 
tured npon avy gross perversions of the original. Modern 
divines who have no such name to uphold, may do what they 
like with the Greek. They have nothing to lose, even though 
their attempts at criticism should betray theif ignorance of 
the language. And again, we fear that the Arminianism of 
the present day is really of a lower grade than that of former 
centuries. Most of the Arminians of the seventeenth century 
would have abhorred the ultra-Pelagianism of the present 
day. The tone of doctrine being lowered, the tone of inter- 
pretation has of necessity become laxer and more pliable. 


LETTER III. 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 


“Cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as 
the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of 
Israel.”"—Jer. xviii. 6. 


My pear Frienp, 


Much of the present controversy is con- 
cerning the will of God. On this point many 
questions have arisen. The chief one, I think, 
is that which touches on the connection be- 
tween the will of God and the will of man. 
What is the relation between these? What 
is the order in which they stand to each other? 
Which is the first ? 

There is no dispute as to the existence of 
these two separate wills. There is a will in 
God, and there is also a will in man. Both 
of these are in continual exercise ;—God will- 
eth,and man willeth. Nothing in the universe 
takes place without the will of God. This is 
admitted. But it is asked, Is this will first in 
everything ? 

I answer, Yes. Nothing that is good can» 
exist which God did not will to be, and noth- Toy 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 51 


ing that is evil can exist which God did not 
will to allow.* The will of God goes before 
all other wills. It does not depend on them, 
but they depend on it. Its movements regu- 
late them. The “I will” of Jehovah, is that 
which sets in motion everything in heaven and 
in earth. The “TI will” of Jehovah, is the 
spring and origin of all that is done through- 
out the universe, great or small, among things 
animate or inanimate. It was this “I will” 
that brought angels into being, and still sus- 
tains them. It was this “TI will” that brought 
this world into being, and still sustains it. It 
was this ‘I will” that was the origin of salva- 
tion to a lost world. It was this “I will” that 
provided a Redeemer, and accomplished re- 
demption. It is this ‘I will” that begins, and 
Carries on, and ends salvation in each soul that 


* It seems to be thought by some, that if we hold the 
good to be the result of God’s direct will, we must hold the 
evil also. But why so? All of us admit that God willed 
the world to be; and it was. There is no question as to 
that. But must we hold, also, that God in the same sense, 
and in the same way, willed that world to fall into ruins? 
No. He simply willed to allow it to fall. So with refer- 
ence to the moral and spiritual world. The existence of 
holiness is the result of his direct decretive will, the exist- 
ence of ungodliness is the result of his indirect permissive 
will. For nothing surely can come to pass save what God 
either wills to be or wills to allow to be. His will must, 
either directly or indirectly, enter into everything. Other- 
wise he would not be Jehovah. 


52 LETTER III. 


is redeemed. It is this ‘I will” that opens 
the blind eye, and unstops the deaf ear. It is 
this “I will” that awakens the slumberer, and 
raises the dead. I do not mean merely that, 
generally speaking, God has declared his will 
concerning these things: but each individual 
conversion, nay, and each movement that forms 
part of it, originates in this supreme T will.” 
When Jesus healed the leper, he said, ‘I will, 
be thou clean ;” so when a soul is converted, 
there is the same distinct and special forth- 
putting of the Divine will, ‘I will, be thou 
converted.” Everything that can be called 
good in man, or in the universe, originates in 
the ‘I will” of Jehovah. 

I do not deny that in conversion man him- 
self wills. In everything that he does, thinks, 
feels, he of necessity wills. In believing he 
wills; in repenting he wills; in turning from 
his evil ways he wills. All this is true. The 
opposite is both untrue and absurd. But 
while fully admitting this, there is another 
question behind it of great interest and mo- 
ment. Are these movements of man’s will 
towards good the effects of the forth-putting 
of God’s will? Is man willing, because he 
has made himself so, or because God has 
made him so? Does he become willing en- 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. d3 


tirely by an act of his own, or by chance, or 
by moral suasion, or because acted on by crea- 
ted causes and influences from without? 

I answer unhesitatingly, he becomes willing, 
because another and a superior will, even that 
of God, has come into contact with his, alter- 
ing its nature and its bent. ‘This new bent is 
the result of a change produced upon it by 
him who alone, of all beings, has the right, 
without control, to say, in regard to all events 
and changes, “I will.” The man’s will has 
followed the movement of the Divine will. 
God has made him willing. God’s will is first 
in the movement, not second. Even a holy 
and perfect will depends for guidance upon the 
will of God.* Even when renewed it. still 
follows, it does not lead. Much more an un- 
holy will, for its bent must first be changed ; 
and how can this be, if God is not to interpose 
his hand and power? 

But is not this to make God the author of 
sin? No. It does not follow that because 
God’s will originates what is good in man, 
that it must therefore originate what is evil. 
The existence of a holy, happy world, proves 
that God had created it with his own hand. 


* Whether it does so in the same way as in the case of 
an imperfect and partially renewed will, I do not discuss. 


5* 


54 LETTER II. 


The existence of an unholy, unhappy world, 
proves that God allowed it to fall into that 
state :—but it proves nothing more. We are 
told that Jesus was delivered by ‘the deter- 
minate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” 
God’s will was there. God permitted that 
deed of darkness to be done; nay, it was the 
result of his ‘determinate counsel.” But 
does that prove that God was the author of 
the sin of either Judas or Herod? Had it not 
been for the eternal ‘I will” of Jehovah, 
Christ would not have been delivered up; but 
does this prove that God compelled either Ju- 
das to betray, or Herod to mock, or Pilate to 
condemn, the Lord of Glory? Still further, 
it is added in another place, ‘*Of a truth 
against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast 
anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with 
the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gath- 
ered together For TO DO WHATSOEVER THY HAND 
AND THY COUNSEL DETERMINED BEFORE TO BE 
pone.” Is it possible to pervert this passage 
so as to prove that it has no reference to pre- 
destination? Yet does it make God the au- 
thor of the deed referred to? Must God be 
the author of sin, because it is said that Israel 
and the Gentiles ‘“‘ were gathered together to 
do what his counsel had determined?” Let 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. do 


our opponents attempt an explanation of such 
a passage, and tell us how it can be made to 
harmonize with their theory. 

It may be argued in opposition to this that 
God works by means, in changing the will. 
‘‘ There is no need, it will be said, that there 
should be the special and direct forthputting 
of his will and strength. He has ordained the 
means, he has given his word, he has pro- 
claimed his gospel, and by these means he 
effects the change. His will does not come 
directly into contact with ours. He leaves it 
to these instruments to effect the change.” 
Well, let us see what amount of truth there 
may be in this. I suppose no one will say 
that the gospel can produce the alteration in 
the will so long as the will rejects it. No 
medicine, however excellent, can operate un- 
less it be taken. The will of man then re- 
jects the gospel; it is set against the truth of 
God. How then is it made to receive it? 
Granting that in receiving it there is a change, 
yet the question is, How was it so far changed 
already as to be willing to receive it? The 
worst feature of the malady is the determina- 
tion not to touch or taste the medicine; and 
how is this to be overcome? Oh! it will be 
said, this resistance is to be overcome with ars 


56 LETTER III. 


suments. Arguments! Is not the gospel it- 
self the great argument? and it is rejected. 
What arguments can you expect to prevail 
with a man that refuses the gospel? Admit 
that there are other arguments, yet the man 
is set against them all. There is not one ar- 
gument that can be used which he does not 
hate. His will resists and rejects every per- 
suasive and motive. How then is this resist- 
ance to be overcome,—this opposition to be 
made to give way? How is the bent of the 
will to be so altered as to receive that which 
it rejected? Plainly by his will coming into 
contact with a superior one,—a will that can 
remove the resistance,—a will such as that 
which said, ‘“‘ Let there be light, and there 
was light.” The will itself must undergo a 
change before it can choose that which it re- 
jected. And what can change it but the 
finger of God ? 

Were man’s rejection of the gospel simply 
occasioned by his misunderstanding it, then I 
can see how, upon its being made plain, resist- 
ance would cease. But | do not believe that 
such is the case ; for what does it amount to 
but just that the sinner never rejects the truth, 
it is only error which he rejects, and were his 
mistake rectified, he would at once embrace 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 57 


the truth! The unrenewed man, then, so far 
from having enmity to the truth, has the very 
opposite! So little of depravity is there in his 
heart, and so little perversity in his will— 
such instinctive love of truth and abhorrence 
of error is there in him, that as soon as the 
truth is made plain to him, he embraces it! 
All his previous hesitation arose from the errors 
which had been mingled with the truth pre- 
sented! One would think that this was any- 
thing but depravity. It might be ignorance, 
but it could not be called enmity to the truth, 
it is rather enmity to error. It would thus 
appear that the chief feature of the sinner’s 
heart and will is not enmity to truth, but 
hatred to error and love of truth! * 

Man’s heart is enmity to God,—to God as 
revealed in the gospel,—to God as the God 
of grace and love. What truth then can there 
be in the assertion that all the sinner’s dis- 


* Tf this system be true, for what is a sinner to be con- 
demned? Not for rejecting the gospel. That he neither did 
nor could do according to this theory. It was error that he 
rejected, not truth, Had the truth been properly presented 
to him, he would not have resisted! Had he but known 
the truth he would have received it. Rejection of the gospel 
is undoubtedly the great condemning sin. But how can it 
be so, if this new doctrine be true? The gospel, it is said, 
needs but to be known in order to its being embraced. How 
then can it ever be knowingly rejected? It may be rejected 
in ignorance, but this is no proper rejection; nor is it such 
a rejection as could in justice be the ground of condemnation. 


58 LETTER II. 


trust of God and darkness of spirit arise from 
his not seeing God as the God of love? I 
grant that oftentimes this is the case. I know 
that it is very frequently misapprehension of 
God’s gracious character, as seen and pledged 
in the cross of Jesus, that is the cause of dark- 
ness to the anxious soul, and that a simple 
sight of the exceeding riches of the grace of 
God would dispel these clouds; but that is 
very different from saying that such a sight, 
apart from the renewing energy of the Spirit 
upon the soul, would change man’s enmity 
into confidence and love. For we know that 
the unrenewed will is set against the gospel ; 
it is enmity to God and his truth. The more 
closely and clearly truth is set before it, and 
pressed home upon it, its hatred swells and 
rises. The presentation of truth, however for- 
cible and clear, even though that truth were 
the love of God in Christ, will only exasperate 
the unconverted man. It is the gospel that 
he hates; and the more clearly it is set before 
him he hates it the more. It is God that he 
hates; and the more closely that God ap- 
proaches him, the more vividly that God is 
set before Him, the more does his enmity 
awaken and augment. Surely, then, that 
which stirs up enmity cannot of itself remove 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 59 


it? If I hate a man, and hate him all the 
more because he loves me, would it not be 
absurd to say, that the knowledge of his love 
would at once subdue my hatred? The 
knowledge of his love is the chief thing that 
causes my hatred, how can it then take it 
away ? Of what avail, then, are the most 
energetic means by themselves? The will it- 
self must be directly operated upon by the 
Spirit of God : He who made it must re-make 
it. Its making was the work of Omunipotence ; 
its re-making must be the same. In no other 
way can its evil bent be rectified. God’s will 
must come into contact with man’s will, and 
then the work is done. Must not God’s will 
then be first in every such movement? Man’s 
will follows ; it cannot lead. 

Is this a hard saying? So some in these 
days would have us to believe. Let us ask 
wherein consists its hardness. Is it hard that 
God’s will should take the precedence of 
man’s? Is it hard that God’s will should be 
the leader and man’s the follower in all things 
great and small? Isis hard that we should 
be obliged to trace the origin of every move- 
ment of man towards good to the will of a sov- 
ereign Jehovah ? 

If it be hard, it must be that it strips man 


60 LETTER III. 


of every fragment of what is good, or of the 
slightest tendency to good. And this we be- 
lieve to be the secret origin of the complaint 
against the doctrine. It is a thorough leveller 
and emptier of man. Jt makes him not only 
nothing, but worse than nothing,—a sinner all 
over,—nothing but a sinner, with a heart full 
of enmity to God, set against him as the God 
of righteousness, and still more set against 
him as the God of love, with a will so bent 
away from the will of God, and so rebellious 
against it, as not to have one remaining incli- 
nation to what is good, and holy, and spiritual. 
This he cannot tolerate. Admit that man is 
totally worthless and helpless, and where is 
the hard saying? Is it hard that God’s blessed 
and holy will should go before our miserable 
and unholy wills, to lead them in the way? 
Is it hard that those who have nothing should 
be indebted for everything toGod? Isit hard, 
seeing that every movement of my will is 
downwards, earthwards, that God’s mighty 
will should come in and lift it omnipotently 
upwards, heavenwards ? 

If God’s will were an obstruction to mine, 
there might be something hard in the doctrine 
of Jehovah’s sovereignty. If the latent relics 
of goodness in me were thwarted by God, or 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 61 


at least disregarded by him, there would be 
something hard indeed. But when his will 
never interferes with mine, save to arrest its 
downward course, what can be less hard, or 
more blessed than this ? 

If I admit that God’s will regulates the great 
movements of the universe, I must admit that 
it equally regulates the small. It must do this, 
for the great depend upon the small. The mi- 
nutest movement of my will is regulated by the 
will of God. And in this I rejoice. Woe is 
me if it be not so. If I shrink from such un- 
limited control and guidance, it is plain that I 
dislike the idea of being wholly at the disposal 
of God.* Iam wishing to be in part at my 
own disposal. I am ambitious of regulating 
the lesser movements of my will, while I give 
up the greater to his control. And thus it 
comes out that I wish to be a god to myself. 
I do not like the thought of God having all the 
disposal of my destiny. If he gets his will, I 

* “The sovereignty of God is so offensive tothe proud 
heart of man, that every expedient of artifice has been em- 
ployed to banish it from the Bible. But no expedient has 
succeeded. The sovereignty of Jehovah meets us in every 
page of the Bible. Nothing more strongly shows the enmity 
of the human heart to this part of the Divine character, (sov- 
-ereignty,) than the forced attempts of learning and ingenuity 
to expel it from the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Ro- 


mans.”—Carson (Dublin) on the knowledge of Jesus the most 
excellent of the sciences, p. 215. 


6 


62 ; LETTER III. 


am afraid that I shall not get mine. It comes 
out, moreover, that the God about whose love 
I was so fond of speaking, is a God to whom I 
cannot trust myself implicitly for eternity. 
Yes, this is the real truth. Man’s dislike at 
God’s sovereignty arises from his suspicion 
of God’s heart. And yet the men in our day, 
who deny this absolute sovereignty, are the 
very men who profess to rejoice in the love of 
God,—who speak of that love as if there were 
nothing else in God but love. The more I un- 
derstand of the character of God, as revealed in 
Scripture, the more shall I see that he must be 
sovereign, and the more shall I rejoice from my 
inmost heart that he is so. 

It was God’s sovereign will that fixed the 
time of my birth. It is the same will that has 
fixed the day of my death. And was not the 
day of my conversion fixed as certainly by that 
same will? Or will any but ‘‘the fool” say 
that, God has fixed by his will the day of our 
birth and death, but leaves us to fix the day 
of our conversion by our own will; that is, 
leaves us to decide whether we shall be con- 
verted or not, whether we shall believe or not? 
If the day of conversion be fixed, then it can- 
not be left to be determined by our own will. 
God determined, where and when, and how we 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 63 


should be born, and so he has determined 
where, and when, and how we shall be born 
again. If so, his will must go before ours in 
believing ; and it is Just because his will goes 
before ours that we become willing to believe. 
Were it not for this, we would never have be- 
lieved at all.* If man’s will precedes God’s will 
in everything relating to himself, then I do not 
see how any of God’s plans or purposes can be 
carried into effect. Man would be left to man- 
age the world in his own way. God must not 
fix the time of his conversion, for that would 
be an interference with man’s responsibility. 
Nay, he must not fix that he shall be converted 
at all, for that must be left to himself and 
to his own will. He must not fix how many 
are to be converted, for that would be making 
his own invitation a mere mockery, and man’s 
responsibility a pretence. He may turn a 
Stray star into its course again. by a direct 
forth-putting of power, and be unchallenged 
for interference with the laws of nature. But 
to stretch out his arm and arrest a human will 


* James i. 18, “ Of his own will he begat us through the 
word of truth.” This is literally in the original, “having 
willed or purposed, he begat us, or brought us forth.” Thus 
there are two things specially shown us here. First, that 
it is God who begets us; and, secondly, that he does so on 
account of a previous purpose of his own. 


64 LETTER III. 


in its devious course, so as to turn it back 
again to holiness, is an unwarrantable exercise 
of his power, and an encroachment upon man’s 
liberty! What a world! where man gets all 
his own way,—where God is not allowed to 
interfere, except in the way that man calls 
lawful! What a world! where everything 
turns upon man’s will ;—where the whole cur- 
rent of events in the world or in the church is 
regulated, shaped, impelled by man’s will alone. 
God’s will is but a secondary thing. Its part 
is to watch events, and follow in the track of 
man’s! Man wills, and God must say— 
Amen! 

In all this opposition to the absolute will of 
‘God, we see the self-will of the last days mani- 
festing itself. Man wanted to be a god at the 
first, and he continues the struggle to the last. 
He is resolved that his will shall take the pre- 
cedence of God’s. In the last Antichrist, this 
self-will shall be summed up and manifested. 
He is the king, that is, to do ‘according to 
his will.” And in the free-will controversy 
of the day, we see the same spirit displayed. 
It is Antichrist that is speaking to us, and ex- 
horting us to proud independence. Self-will is 
the essence of anti-christianism. Self-will is 
the root of bitterness, that is springing up in 


GOD’S WILL AND MAN’S WILL. 65 


the churches in these days. And it is not from 
above, it is from beneath. It is earthly, sen- 
sual, devilish— I am, &c. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“TI will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will 
show mercy on whom I will show mercy.”—Ex, xxxiii. 19. 

“T, even I am he, and there is no God with me. I kill 
and I make alive; I wound and I heal; neither is there any 
that can deliver out of my hand.”—Deut. xxxii. 39, 

“ Behold he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again ; 
he shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening,” — 
Job xii. 14 

“When he gives quietness, who can give trouble? and 
when he hideth, who can behold him ?”—Job XXxXlv. 29. 

“He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, 
and the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, 
or say unto him, What doest thou ?”—Dan. iv. 35. 

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, 
not according to our works, but according To HIS OWN PUR- 
POSE and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world 
began.”—2 Tim. i. 9. 


NOTE. 


We are told that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty has a 
most deadening effect. Now, it is remarkable that all the 
revivals in America during last century were under min- 
isters who held this doctrine very rigidly. President Ed- 
wards is an instance of this. Few have been so extensively 
blessed, yet he preached it most unreservedly. He was 
preaching on it during the great revival at N orthampton, 
when three hundred were converted in less than six months, 
Nay, it was under some of his sermons on God’s absolute 
sovereignty that the awakenings took place. The nature of 
this glorious work will appear from the following senten- 
ces:—“ A great and earnest concern about the great things 
of religion became universal in all parts of the town, (a town 


6* 


66 LETTER II. 


of four thousand.) The noise of the dry bones waxed louder 
and louder; all other talk but about spiritual and eternal 
things was soon thrown by. There was scarcely a single 
person in the town, old or young, left unconcerned about the 
great things of the eternal world.” Is this setting souls 
asleep, or damping the work of God? I may add, that it 
was at this time also that he printed his sermon entitled, 
« A Divine and Supernatural Light immediately imparted 
to the Soul by the Spirit of God,” &e. 


LEDIER BY. 


ELECTION. 


*‘ Many are called, but few are chosen.’’—Marvt. xxii. 14. 
“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”—Acrs xiii. 48, 


My pear Frienp, 


You know what a very prominent place in 
Scripture the doctrine of election holds. It 
meets us everywhere, both in the Old and New 
Testament. Whatever may be the meaning 
of the word, one cannot help feeling that the 
truth which it expresses must, in God’s sight, 
be a vitally important one. 

But how can this be the case, if it mean no 
more than God’s choosing those that choose 
him? Ifit mean no more than God’s choos- 
ing those who he foresaw would believe of 
their own accord and by their own power, it 
is not worthy of the prominent place it holds 
in Scripture; nay, it is not worthy of a sepa- 
rate name, least of all of such a name as elec- 
tion. If there be any election at all in such a 
case, it is plainly not God’s election of man, 
but man’s election of God. So that the ques- 


68 LETTER IV. 


tion comes to be simply this, Does election 
mean God’s choosing man, or man’s choosing 
God? It cannot mean both; it must either 
be the one or the other. Which of the two 
can any reasonable being suppose it to mean ?* 


* As the right understanding of this word is of great im- 
portance, I think it well to note down a few passages, which 
will help to shed light upon the meaning of the word. 

“The man’s rod, whom J shall choose, shall blossom.”— 
Num. xvii. 5. 

“Thou shalt set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy 
God shall choose.’—Deut. xvii. 15. 

“Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel.”-—1 Sam. 
ik, 28. 

“The place which the Lord hath chosen, to put his name 
there.” —Deut. xii. 21. 

“Them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto 
him.”-—Deut. xxi. 5. 

“Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen out of all the 
tribes of Israel.”—1 Kings xi. 32. 

“The Lord chose me, before all the house of my father, to 
be king over Israel.”—1 Chron. xxviii. 4. 

“He refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the 
tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount 
Zion that he loved.”’—Ps, lxxviii. 67, 68. 

“Many are called, but few are chosen.—Matt. xx. 16. 

“ For his elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen.” ——Mark xiii. 20. 

“He is a chosen vessel unto me.”—Acts ix. 15. 

“T know whom I have chosen.” —John xiii. 18. 

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.”—John 
xv. 16. 

“ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foun- 
dation of the world.”’—Eph. i. 4. 

“God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.”— 
2 Thess. ii. 13. 

These are but a few out of the many passages that might 
have been chosen. But they are quite enough to show the 
meaning of the word. No one who wishes to take words 
plainly as he finds them, can find any difficulty in under- 
standing what choosing or election means, after reading such 
passages as these. 


ELECTION. 69 


I would just ask, What does the word 
mean in common speech? When we speak 
of the election of a member of parliament, 
does that mean that the member first chose 
himself, and then the people chose him, be- 
cause he had chosen himself? Or when we 
speak of the election of a minister, do we mean 
that he first chose himself, and then the peo- 
ple chose him, because he had chosen himself? 
No such theory of election would be listened 
to for a moment in such matters. Hlection 
has but one meaning there. It means the 
people’s choosing their representative by a dis- 
tinct act of their own will, or the congregation 
choosing their minister by an equally distinct 
act of their own will. And shall man have 
his will, and shall not God have his? Shall 
man have his choice, and shall not God have 
his ? 

But let us take an instance from the Bible. 
What does God’s choosing of Abraham mean ? 
He is a specimen of a sinner saved by grace ; 
a sinner called out of the world by God. 
Well, how did this choosing take place? Did 
not God think of him long before he ever 
thought of God? Did not God choose him 
long before he ever thought of choosing God? 
Were there not thousands more in Chaldea 


70 LETTER IV. 


that God might have chosen, and called, and 
saved, had he pleased? Yet he chose Abra- 
ham alone. And what does the Bible call 
this procedure on the part of God? It calls 
it election. ‘*Thou art the Lord, the God 
who didst choose Abraham, and _ broughtest 
him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees.”—Ne- 
hem. ix. 7. Does any one say, O, but God 
chose Abraham, because he foresaw that Abra- 
ham would choose him. I answer, the case is 
precisely the reverse of this. He chose Abra- 
ham just because he saw that otherwise Abra- 
ham would not choose him. It was God’s 
foreseeing that Abraham would ot choose 
him, that made election necessary. And so it 
is with every sinner. So it is with us. God 
chooses us, not because he foresees that we 
would choose him, or that we would believe, 
but for the very opposite reason. He chooses 
us just because he foresees that we would nei- 
ther choose him nor believe of ourselves at all. 
Election proceeds not upon foreseen faith in 
us, but upon foreseen unbelief. 

The truth is, that election has no meaning, 
if it be not the expression of God’s will in 
reference to particular persons and things,— 
saying to each, thus and thus shalt thou be, 
not because thou choosest to be so, but because 


e 


ELECTION. 71 


I, the infinite Jehovah, see fit that thou should- 
est be so. ‘I'o one creature he says, thou shalt 
be an angel, to another thou shalt be a man. 
To one order of beings, thou shalt dwell in 
heaven, to another, thou shalt dwell on earth. 
To one man, thou shalt be born in Judea, 
where my name is named and my temple 
stands; to another, thou shalt be born in 
Egypt, or Babylon, where utter darkness 
reigns. ‘J’o one he says, thou shalt be born in 
Britain, and hear the glad tidings; to another, 
thou shalt be born in Africa, where no gospel 
has ever come. ‘Thus he expresses his will, 
and who can resist it? Who can find fault, 
or say to him, what doest thou? Men may 
object at being placed thus entirely at the dis- 
posal of God, but the apostle’s answer to such 
is, ‘‘ Nay but, O man, who art thou that re- 
pliest against God?” Election, then, is the 
distinct forthputting of God’s sovereign will, 
for the purpose of bringing a thing to pass, 
which, bnt for the explicit forthgoing of that 
will, would not have come to pass. 

But does this not lead to the conclusion that 
sin is the direct result of God’s decree? Does 
it not teach us that it is God and not man 
that produces sin? No. God does not fore- 
ordain sin. But he decrees to allow man to 


72 LETTER IV. 


sin. God is holy, and hates sin. He does 
not lead men into it; neither does he decree 
to lead men into it. But he decrees that, for 
infinitely wise ends, the creature should be 
permitted to fall, and sin be perpetuated. 

Men argue, that if we contend for God’s 
fore-ordination at all, we must hold that he 
fore-ordains everything in the same way. ‘They 
try to reduce the question to an absurdity, by 
affirming, that if God pre-determine to do the 
good, he must also predetermine to do the evil; 
that if he decrees that one man shall be a 
saint, he must also decree that another man 
shall be a sinner. ‘To this I would reply as 
follows, in addition to what I have already ob- 
served in another place : 

1. God forces no man to sin, either by what 
he decrees or what he does, either by com- 
manding or constraining or alluring. 

2. It is absurd to say, that if we hold that 
God is the author of the good, he must there- 
fore be the author of the evil; that if he, 
from eternity, purposed to create what is good 
in man, he must therefore have purposed to 
create what is evil. It is absurd to say, that 
if I hold that it is God who sets my will 
right, I must hold that it was God who set it 
wrong’. 


ELECTION. 73 


3. We know that there is such a thing asa 
particular providence which numbers the very 
hairs of our head, whose eye marks even the 
fall of a sparrow. But must we therefore 
maintain that this special providence is the 
source of all that is evil as well as all that is 
good? Not a sparrow falleth without our 
Father, it is said. Must we then hold that 
God caused the death of the sparrow? Not 
a man dies without God. Must we therefore 
maintain that God slew him? God fixed the 
time of Christ’s death beforehand, with all the 
circumstances and persons connected with it. 
Perhaps the modern opposers of predestination 
will not admit that Christ’s death was fixed 
by God from all eternity ; but they will at 
least grant that it must have been fixed from 
the era of Daniel, who predicted the year. If 
God then fore-ordained the death of Christ, 
did he fore-ordain the sin, and compel men to 
commit it? No. He fore-ordained the event, 
and he fore-ordained to allow wicked men to 
perpetrate it. But he led no one into the sin; 
nor does he condemn it the less. This one 
illustration is enough to settle the whole mat- 
ter. Here is an event acknowledged by all to 
be fore-ordained—the death of Christ. Did 
this fore-ordination make God to commit the 

7 


74 LETTER IV. 


sin, or render the murderers less guilty? No. 
Yet our opponents, according to their theory, 
must hold either that Christ’s death was not 
fore-ordained of God at all, or else that God, 
and not man, is chargeable with the sin of his 
crucifixion. According to them, Herod and 
Pilate will be unjustly condemned, for doing 
only what God had decreed should be done. 

4. God frequently gave predictions of evil 
long before the time. Of course, then, if evil 
be predicted regarding either nations or indi- 
viduals, it must-be fixed and sure. He pre- 
dicted the curse on Canaan and his descend- 
ants. But does that prove that he delighted 
in the curse, or that he was the author of it, 
or that those who were the instruments of in- 
flicting it, and so fulfilling the prophecy, were 
guiltless ? 

5. When we say that God fixes beforehand 
the time and circumstances of a person’s birth 
and conversion and death,—the place and the 
condition which he is to oceupy, our opponents 
tell us that we might as well say that it is 
God’s decree that makes us sinners. When 
we say, God decreed that Gabriel should be 
kept from falling, and remain an angel forever, 
they tell us that this is just to say that God 
resolved that Lucifer should be a devil, and 


ELECTION. 75 


when the time came, he made him one. Ac- 
cording to these strange inferences, God is not 
to be allowed to allocate heaven to angels, and 
earth to man as his seat; he is not to be 
allowed to “set the bounds of our habitations,” 
so that one man shall be born in England and 
another in Africa. He is not to be allowed to 
appoint the time of our birth, or our conver- 
sion, or our death; nor is he to be permitted 
to fix our country, or our habitation, or our 
circumstances ; because if he is allowed to fix 
these things, he must fix all the rest,—the 
destinies of eternity as well as the affairs of 
time. 

6. Even our opponents admit that there are 
some events decreed beforehand, such as the 
birth and the death of Christ, the judgment- 
day, &c. If, then, they admit that he has 
decreed a single event, they are in precisely 
the same difficulty in which they seek to fix 
us. If one event is decreed, why not all? 
Who is to draw the line and say, these are 
decreed, but those are not? God’s will has 
already fixed one or two, and is man’s will, or 
chance, to settle ail the rest ? 

In farther explanation of this point, let me 
quote a few paragraphs from a tract which I 
published some years ago. It was written be- 


76 LETTER IV. 


fore the ‘‘new light” dawned ; and the present 
controversies have only tended to deepen the 
sense I then had of the importance of the truth 
contained in it.* 

I know that the sinner must have a wed/ in 
the matter, too. It is an absurdity to speak 
of a sinner loving, believing, &c., against his 
will, or by compulsion. The sinner must 
doubtless wild. He must will to refuse, and 
he must will to receive Christ. He must will 
to take the broad way, and he must will to 
take the narrow way. His will is essential to 
all these movements of his soul. But in what 
state do we find his will at present? We find 
it wholly set against the truth. Every will, 
since the fall, is wholly opposed to God and 
his word. Man needs no foreign influence, no 
external power, to make him reject the truth. 
That he does by nature. He hates it with his 
whole heart. When a sinner then comes to 
receive the truth, how is this accomplished? 
Does he renew himself? Does he change the 
enmity of his will by an unaided act of his 
will? Does he of himself bend back his own 
will into the opposite direction? Does he, by 
a word of his own power, cause the current 


* See Note at the end of the chapter. 


ELECTION. 77 


that had been flowing down the hill to change 
its course and flow upward? Does his own 
will originate the change in itself, and carry 
that change into effect? Impossible. The 
current would have flowed forever downward 
had it not been arrested in its course by some- 
thing stronger than itself. The sinner’s will 
would have remained forever in depravity and 
bondage, had not another will, mightier far 
than itself, come into contact with it, and al- 
tered both its nature and its course, working 
in the sinner ‘ both to will and to do.” Was 
the sinner willing before this other will met 
his? No. Was he willing after? Yes. Then, 
is it not plain that it was God’s will, meeting 
and changing his, that made the difference? 
God’s will was first. It was God’s will that 
began the work, and made the sinner willing. 
He never would have willed had not God 
made him willing. ‘Thy people shall be 
willing in the day of thy power.” It is the 
power of Jehovah applied to us that makes us 
willing. ‘Till that is applied, we are unwill- 
ing. It is his hand, operating directly upon 
the soul, that changes its nature and its bent. 
Were it not for that, our unwillingness would 
never be removed. No outward means or mo- 
tives would be sufficient to effect the change ; 
Y foal 


78 LETTER IV. 


for all these means and motives are rejected 
by the sinner; nor does he become willing even 
to allow the approach or application of these 
means and motives till God makes him willing. 
To speak of his being changed by that which 
he rejects is as absurd as to speak of a man’s 
being healed by a medicine which he persists 
in refusing. ‘Can the Ethiopian change his 
skin, or the leopard his spots ?” 

Are all, then, willing? Does not the de- 
praved will remain in most, while the new will 
appears in few? What makes the difference ? 
God’s choice. ‘Even so, Father, for so it 
seemed good in thy sight.” ‘ Hath not the 
potter power over the clay, of the same lump 
to make one vessel unto honor, and another 
unto dishonor ?”’* ‘Except the Lorp oF Hosts 
HAD LEFT unto us a very small remnant, we 
should have been as Sodom, and we should 
have been like unto Gomorrah.”t 

Does God then hinder sinners from believ- 
ing and willing? No,—by no means. He 
hinders none. ‘They are their own hindrance, 
‘Ye will not come to me that ye might have 
life”? Not one soul would be saved if left to 
their own will. But, in his infinite mercy, 


* Rom, ix, 21, + Isa. i. 9, 


ELECTION. 79 


God does not leave them to their own wills. 
He puts forth his mighty power on some to 
make them willing. Were it not for this, all 
would be lost, for all would reject the Saviour. 
But is not this unjust? Is God dealing 
fairly with his creatures in making some will- 
ing, and leaving the rest to their unwilling- 
ness? What! Are we to prohibit God from 
saving any, unless he saves all? Are we to 
accuse him of injustice, because he leaves 
some to reap the fruits of their unbelief, and 
delivers others from them? Is God unjust in 
saving whom he will, when all were lost? 
Some are given to accusing us of making 
God guilty of partiality. As if they were 
singular in their zeal for God’s honor, they 
exclaim, ‘We cannot bear a partial God!” 
Partiality means of course injustice ; 1t means 
also, that the sinner has a right to favor from 
God. ‘They must show, then, that for God to 
save some when all were lost is wnjust. They 
must show that all sinners had a right to his 
favor, for if none had any right, there can be 
ho partiality. But if this theory be true, then 
God was partial in not providing a Saviour for 
angels. He was partial in choosing Israel, and 
not choosing Babylon, or Egypt, as the nation 
to whom he made himself known. He was 


80 LETTER IV. 


partial in sending prophets to Israel, and not 
to Tyre and Sidon. He was partial in doing 
his mighty works only in the land of Judea. 
And Jesus was partial in commanding his 
disciples not to go to either Gentiles or Sa- 
maritans. In short, if sovereignty be partiali- 
ty, then the Bible is full of it. And it would 
be just as well for these men to say at once 
what their theory implies,—that God is not 
at liberty to act as he pleases, but only as man 
may dictate! 

But why does God save some, and not all? 
Because such is “‘the good pleasure of his will.” 
He has infinitely wise reasons for this, though 
we understand them not. Might we not with 
equal propriety ask, Why did he keep some 
angels from falling? and why did he allow 
others to fall? Or, may we not ask, Why did 
he not think of saving angels, why think of 
men alone? Is Jehovah not at liberty to do 
what he will with his own? Is he not at 
liberty to create as many worlds and as many 
beings as he pleases? And when these are 
ruined, is he not at liberty to redeem as many 
or as few as he pleases ? 

The real question in all this is just, “ Are 
all men so depraved that they will not be saved 
unless God puts forth his almighty power ?” 


ELECTION. 81 


If so, then it is plain that God must put forth 
his power to save every one that is saved ; and 
surely he is at liberty to choose whom he 1s to 
save. If indeed men are not totally depraved, 
then there is no need for the interposition of 
God’s hand, either in choosing or in saving. 
But admit man’s total ruin and depravity, and 
you must admit the direct forth-putting of the 
arm of Jehovah. And hence it is that many 
in our day are beginning to deny man’s total 
depravity of nature. They are smoothing 
down the expressions referring to it in Scrip- 
ture, and claiming for man as much remain- 
ing power and goodness as will enable him in 
part to save himself, and do without the inter- 
position of the hand of God. 

Oh, but it is said, we do not deny election. 
We merely maintain that God elected those 
who he foresaw would believe.* I answer, 

* The following remarks of Calvin will show, that in his 
day none but “Papist theologians” held the doctrine, that 
God elects men because he foresees they will believe. 

“The Papist theologians have a distinction current among 
themselves, that God does not elect men according to works 
which are in them, but that he chooses those who he foresees 
will be believers. And therein they contradict what we have 
already alleged from St. Paul, for he says that we are chosen 
and elected in him, ‘that we might be holy and without 
blame.” Paul must needs have spoken otherwise, if God 
elected us having foreseen that we should be holy. But he 


has not used such language: he says, ‘he hath elected us 
that we might be holy.” He infers, therefore, that the latter 


82 LETTER Iv. 


this is a total denial of election ; and it is either 
dishonesty or ignorance to call this by such 
a name. God elected those who he fore- 
saw would believe! And who were they? 
None,—absolutely none. He foresaw that 
none would believe, not one. And because 
he foresaw this, he elected some to believe. 
Otherwise not one would ever have believed 
at all. 

With regard to the foreseeing who would be- 
lieve, I have some difficulties to state. Ac- 
cording to the Arminian theory, I may believe 
to-day and disbelieve to-morrow, according to 
my own will. I may thus go on believing and 
disbelieving alternately till the day of my 
death. God then one day foresees that I will 
believe, and he decrees to save me. But the 
next day he foresees me not believing, and he 
decrees that I should perish. How in such a 
case is the matter to be finally settled? Is it 
according to the state in which God foresees 
the sinner will be just at the last moment of 
his life? Or when? Let our opponents solve 
this difficulty if they are able. 


(faith) depends upon the former (election.) Those who think 
otherwise, know not what man and human nature is.” Such 
is the testimony of Calvin against the Papist theologians of 
his day. Since that time many have joined the ranks of 
these theologians, and glory in their heresies. 


ELECTION. 83 


Oh, but some profane objector says, ‘* Does 
God make men to be damned ?”* Let me in 
few words answer the miserable atheism of 
such an objection; and I do it not out of re- 
gard for the pride of the objector, but for the 
sake of those who may be perplexed by this 
poor catch of an argument which is so freely 
and flippantly bandied about,—an argument 
which befits a scoffer only,—an argument 
whose father is the father of lies. It is some- 
what remarkable that this is precisely the ar- 
gument of Socinians, Universalists, and Deists, 
against the doctrine of future punishments, 
and against the existence of such a place as 
hell. If you speak of hell or everlasting fire to 
such, the answer is, ‘‘ Did God make men to 
damn them ?” And however abominable and 
unscriptural their notion is, it is at least con- 
sistent with their own theory. Making God 
to be all love and nothing else, they think it 
inconsistent with his love that he should allow 
such a place as hell in the universe. They be- 


* Were it not that I have heard these words used, and 
know that the expression is a current one among a certain 
class, [would not have mentioned it. Its flippancy is revolt- 
ing ; its downright blasphemy still more so. It is the devil’s 
original suggestion translated into modern language, “ Ye 
shall not surely die, 7. e., God would not make yoa to damn 
you.” Thus men, in these last days, are “foaming out their 
own shame.” 


84 LETTER IV. 


lieve in no hell, and ask scornfully, “* Did God 
make men to damn them ?”’* 

But let me answer the question, however 
profane it may be. Ged did mot make men to 
damn them. He did not make the angels 
‘who kept not their first estate,” to damn 
them. He did mot make Lucifer for the pur- 
pose of casting him out of heaven. He did 
not make Adam for the purpose of driving 
him out of Paradise. He did not make Judas 
for the purpose of sending him to his own place. 
God made man,—every man, and everything 


* The resemblance between the arguments of the new di- 
vines and those of Deists, &c., is by no Means so narrow or 
casual as some may be disposed to think. I believe that 
some of the former have already carried out their principles, 
and maintain that there is no hell but what man creates for 
himself; that there is no material fire kindled by God, and 
no material sufferings inflicted by God; that man’s conscience 
is his only tormentor—his own hell; that as God does noth- 
ing directly to man in saving him, so he inflicts nothing di- 
rectly upon him as a punishment, but leaves him to be his 
own avenger. This, of course, is the consistent termination 
of their theory,—the natural development of their central 
principle,—that God does not interfere directly with the soul 
of man. How far this opinion prevails, I do not know; but 
it was maintained by one of them to myself. It is some 
years since one of the most noted Congregational ministers 
in London made the following avowal: “I do not believe in 
material fire in hell . . . it is quite enough to have this 
fire, the natural effects of sin in a moral nature, ke.” Rev. 
T. Binney, sermon in the Penny Pulpit, May 26, 1889. An- 
other of that body has but a few months ago sent forth an 
octavo volume to prove that there is no such thing as ey- 
eee pe punishments at all! Christ our Life, by Rey. E 

nite, 


) 


) 


ELECTION. 85 


to ctoriry Him. This every creature, man 
and angel, must do, either actively or passively, 
either willingly or unwillingly,—actively and 
willingly in heaven, or passively and unwil- 
lingly in hell. This is God’s purpose; and it 
shall stand. God may have many other ends 
in creation; but this is the chief one, the ulti- 
mate one,—the one which is above all the rest, 
and to which all the rest are subordinate. 

In this sense then plainly, God did not 
make men either to destroy or to save them. 
He made them for his own glory. If the 
question is asked, Did God make the devil 
and his angels only to damn them? I an- 
swer, Hie made them for his own glory. They 
are lost forever; but does that prove that he 
made them only to destroy them? He kept 
their companions from falling, and hence they 
are called the ‘elect angels,”—while he did 
not keep them. He could have kept them all 
by his power, yet he did not. But does this 
prove that he made them to destroy them ? 
They fell, and were in a moment consigned 
to everlasting chains; he made no effort to 
save them—he sent no redemption to them. 
But does this prove that He made them only 
to destroy them? If ever such an accusation 
could be preferred against God, it must be in 

8 


86 LETTER IV. 


the case of angels, to whom no salvation was 
sent. It cannot be said of man, to whom a 
Saviour has come. 

No, but it is said, you believe in election ; 
and it is this that makes us put the question. 
If there be no election, then God has not made 
man to destroy him. On this let me make 
one or two remarks. 

1. This is absurd, unless it can be proved 
that election is God's plan for hindering men 
from getting to heaven, and for forcing 
them against their will down to death. But 
God hinders no man from being saved, neither 
does he compel any man to be lost, either by 
what he decrees or what he does. How then 
does election prove that he made men to de- 
stroy them ? 

2. Whatever is right for God to do, it 1s 
right for him to decree. If God’s casting sin- 
ners into hell be not wrong or unjust, then his 
purposing to do so from all eternity cannot be 
wrong or unjust. So that you must either 
deny that there is a hell, or admit God’s right 
to predetermine who are to dwell there forever. 
There is no middle way between Calvinism 
and Universalism. 

3. If there be no election, then everything 
must be left to chance, or to man’s own will. 


ELECTION. 87 


Hither God must settle everything great and 
small; or man must settle everything; or 
chance must settle everything. We are told, 
that for God to settle everything is an intoler- 
able hardship, and is just ‘creating men in 
order to damn them.” Now we maintain, 
that for God to settle everything is the only 
right, as well as the only blessed condition in 
which our world can be. But let us ask, 
what better would it make matters were God 
not to settle everything beforehand? This 
appears to us unspeakably worse. For an in- 
finitely wise, holy, gracious Being to arrange 
everything according to his own wisdom, holi- 
ness, and grace, appears to us the very per- 
fection of things. For him not to do so, but 
to leave all things either to chance, or to the 
will of foolish, unholy, wicked beings, seems 
to us the very height of cruelty and folly. 
How cruel to leave a multitude of sinful, fool- 
ish, blind, perverse creatures to do whatever 
they please ; so that by means of their wills 
this world is moving on without a specific 
plan for its motions, or to a certain end in 
which all its disorder is to issue ;—so that 
not one, not even God, can tell what is to be 
the result of all this confusion, and sin, and 
darkness, or whether it is ever to come to a 


88 LETTER IV. 


termination at all, for life or for death to man, 
for glory or for shame to God! Yet we are 
told, that unless we admit of this infinite 
cruelty and hardship, we are making God a 
tyrant, who has created men to damn them! 
Unless we admit of a universe without an 
eternal plan to which all its motions are sub- 
ject and subservient, a world of blind tumult 
and unmitigated chaos; a world where the 
only directly moving or energizing power is 
a sinful will, or rather a multitude of erring 
struggling wills; a world regarding which 
nothing is fixed as to who shall be born, and 
who shall die, as to who shall get the gospel, 
and who shall not, who shall be saved, or who 
shall be lost, or whether any shall be saved or 
any lost ; unless we admit all this, we are told 
that we are making man a mere piece of inert 
irresponsible clay, and God the mere oppressor, 
not the loving Father of the creatures which 
he has made! 

With these remarks I leave this point; and 
in doing so I would merely call your attention 
to one or two passages of Scripture, which it 
would be well for those to ponder who put 
such a question as that to which I have been 
adverting. ‘‘'The Lord hath made all things 
for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day 


ELECTION. 89 


of evil,” Prov. xvi. 4. ‘As many as were 
ordained to eternal life believed,” Acts xiii. 48, 
“The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for 
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that 
I might show my power in thee, and that 
my name might be declared throughout all 
the earth ... what if God, willing to show his 
wrath and to make his power known, endured 
with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction,’ Rom. ix. 17, 22. 

Texts like these are not to be explained 
away or overlooked. ‘They are part of God’s 
holy word, just as much as ‘‘God is love.” 
And if one class of texts is to be twisted or 
turned away from, why not another? Let us 
fearlessly look both in the face ; and let us be- 
lieve them both, whatever difficulty we may 
find in reconciling them. Our first duty is to 
believe, not to reconcile. ‘There are many 
things which in this life we shall not be able 
to reconcile ; but there is nothing in the Bible 
which we need to shrink from believing. Not- 
withstanding all that I have said regarding 
election, I believe most firmly that ‘“ God has 
no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” I 
believe that ‘‘ God so loved the worup that he 
gave his only begotten Son.” I believe that 
God is in earnestness and honesty making 

g* 


90 LETTER IV. 


proposals of friendship to sinners, and beseech- 
ing all to be reconciled to him. I believe that 
the invitations of the Gospel are to atu with- 
out exception. Yet, while I believe all this, 
I believe in election too. ‘‘ Many are called, 
but few are chosen.” If I am asked, How 
can you reconcile these things? I answer, I 
am not careful to reconcile them. I am satis- 
fied that God has told me that doth are true. 
Therefore I believe them both. The day is 
coming when he will make all things plain. 
‘‘ He that believeth doth not make haste.” J 
would not fret myself, nor be impatient at the 
difficulty. He will solve it in his own time 
and way. Who am I that I should say to 
God, ‘‘I cannot believe both of these doc- 
trines, for, to my mind, they are inconsistent 
with each other.” Is my inability to compre- 
hend their consistency a reason for my reject- 
ing either the one or the other? In that case 
the infidel alone is consistent, for he rejects 
both.—I am yours, Xe. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, 
because you were more in number than any people, for ye 
were the fewest of all people, but because the Lord loved 
you.”—Deut. vii. 7. 

“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord, yet I 
loved Jacob and I hated Esau.”——Mal i. 2. 


ELECTION. 91 


“J thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 
because thou hast hid these things from the wise and pru- 
dent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, 
for so it seemed good in thy sight.”—Matt. xi. 25. 

“Tt is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom 
of heaven, but to them it is not given.”—Matt. xiii. 11. 

“To sit on my right hand, or on my left, is not mine to 
give, save to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” 
—Matt. xx. 23. _ 

“Many are called, but few are chosen.”—-Matt. xxii. 14. 

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and 
ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit?’— 
John xy. 16. 

“ According as he hath chosen us in him before the founda- 
tion of the world.”—Eph. i. 4. 

“When it pleased God, who separated me from my 
mother’s womb and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son 
in me.”——Gal. i. 15. 

“ All that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names 
were not written in the book of life from the foundation of 
the world.”—Rey. xvii. 8. 


NOTES. 


Election means choice, and to elect means to choose. The 
sovereign right of choosing belongs to God alone. Hence 
He said himself to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I 
will have mercy.” (Rom. ix. 15.) His will is the law of 
the universe. We are the clay and he is the potter. (Is. 
lxiv. 8.) All things take place according to “the determi- 
nate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” (Acts ii. 23.) 
He has made his choice or election from all eternity. 
(Eph. i. 4.) Everything in this world happens according 
to God's eternal arrangements. Nothing takes place except 
what God causes to be, or permits to be ;—and whatever 
happens in time, is decreed from eternity. (Is. xlvi. 10.) 
Even the wicked deed of those who crucified the Lord of 
glory is said by the Apostle to be determined before by the 
hand and counsel of God. (Acts iv. 27, 28; also ii. 28.) 

All that God does, he arranges beforehand in his eternal 
counsels with infinite wisdom. He does not leave anything 


92 LETTER IV. 


to chance, or to the direction of beings less perfect in wis- 
dom than himself. If he were to do so, everything would 

o wrong. And what he intends to do is not left undeter- 
mined till the moment, or the day, or the year, before doing 
it, for then he would be a changeable being like man; but 
it is settled from all eternity. Hence it is said, “ Known 
unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” 
Acts xv.18. Thus God decreed from all eternity to make 
the world, and when his appointed time came, he made it. 
So God decreed from all eternity to create man, and when 
the fixed time came, he was created. It was not Adam 
who chose to be made; but it was God who chose to make 
Adam. 

Now, what is true of the making of man, is far more true 
of the saving of man, Adam was made, not because he 
chose to be made, but because God chose to make him; and 
Adam was saved, not because he chose to be saved, but be- 
cause God chose to save him. Adam’s salvation depended 
wholly upon God’s having chosen him to salvation, that is, 
upon God’s having elected him. Had God not chosen him, 
he never would have chosen God, and so would never have 
been saved. So it was with Cain and Abel. Both were 
equally lost by nature, yet Abel was saved, and Cain was 
not. Why was Abel saved? It was not because he chose 
God any more than his brother Cain, but because God chose 
him. Therefore it is written, “ He hath mercy on whom he 
will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (Rom, 
ix. 18.) What is true of Abel is true of all that ever have 
been, or ever shall be saved. 

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with 
God? God forbid!” (Rom. ix. 14.) God cannot be un- 
righteous in saving whom He pleases, or in passing by whom 
He pleases. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of 
the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another 
unto dishonor? (Rom. ix. 21.) Shall worms of the dust 
say, What doest thou? His decreeing to'save man, did not 
make it unjust or cruel to pass by the angels. It could not 
be so unless they had deserved to be saved, which they did 
not. He decreed to save none of the angels, but he decreed 
to save some from among men. He needed not have saved 
any. He might have left them all to perish just as he left 
the angels. But he determined to save some. He did not 
determine to save all, or all would have been saved, just as 
all the angels were kept from falling whom he decreed to 


ELECTION. 93 


keep. It would have been infinite love to have saved one 
single soul; but it was far greater love to save so many. 
And then how wonderfully was this love shown forth in 
determining to do so from all eternity! O what unfathom- 
able love is displayed in God’s eternal decree of electing 
love! To be thinking of us from all eternity! To leave 
nothing to chance, but to fix everything beforehand! To 
leave nothing to our own wretched choice, but to arrange 
everything from all eternity according to his own glorious 
choice, his infinitely perfect and unerring plans! Oh, what 
& universe is this, where nothing, not even the falling of a 
sparrow, is left to anything short of infinitely perfect wis- 
dom, infinitely pure and perfect love! Oh, if there were no 
eternal and unchangeable decree of the God only wise, or- 
dering everything aright, what a mass of unutterable con- 
fusion would this world be! How unutterably consoling to 
think that everything that occurs is ordered by the eternal 
will and wisdom of the blessed God! 

By nature man chooses nothing but sin. No man would 
choose God, or ever think of God, if God did not first choose 
him. If men, then, were left to their own choice, all would 
be lost. If there were no decree of God, no man could be 
saved. What an awful doctrine is that of those who say 
there is no eternal decree! To take away God’s electing 
apace, is to take away a poor sinner’s only hope of salvation. 

must be plain then to all, that God’s decree does not 
hinder any man from being saved. Those that are lost, are 
lost not because God wanted them to perish, but because 
they would not be saved. They would have been lost even hud 
there been no decree, because they were sinners. God's de- 
cree did not make them sinners; it did not force them to be 
lost. It fownd them sinners, and it left them so; it found 
them lost, and it left them so. It did nothing more. It did 
not compel them to sin; it did not drive them to ruin. No, 
It simply passed them by. And was the sovereign God not 
entitled to do this? 

Man could not create himself, and far less can he save him- 
self. When God made him, he brought him out of nothing ; 
when God saves him, he brings him out of a state far lower 
and worse than nothing. If in the one case, then, every- 
thing depended upon God’s will and decree, much more in 
the other. There can be no injustice here. Had God 
pleased, He might have saved the whole world. But He 
did not; and thousands are now in hell, and shall be to all 


94 LETTER IV. 


eternity. Who will say that God is unjust, because He has 
left them to perish forever, while he has saved others as 
vile as they? If there be any cruelty at all in the matter, 
it must be in his allowing any to perish when he might have 
saved all. The opposers of election say, there cannot be 
such a thing as a decree fixing everything, or God would 
not be sincere in saying that he willeth all men to be saved. 
But they might far more plausibly argue, that God cannot 
be almighty, for he says he wi//s all to be saved, and yet 
does not save all. 

If there be any injustice in the case, it must be, not in 
decreeing the thing, but in doing it. And yet the thing is 
done! Whether decreed or not, the thing is done! To 
remove the decree will not extinguish the flames of wrath, 
Hell is peopled already with millions of immortal souls, 
doomed to fiery wrath; while heaven is filled with millions 
of ransomed sinners, as vile, yea, perhaps viler far than they! 
What has made the difference? Man’s will or God’s !— 
man’s choice or God's? Those that deny God’s electing love 
may say, “ Man’s will ;” but they who own a sovereign God, 
will say at once, “God's will, not man’s.” Yes! God’s 
eternal will; for Jehovah changes not, but his plays and 
purposes are, like himself, from everlasting. “ Who hath 
made us to differ?” is the wondering exclamation of earth. 
“Who hath made us to differ?” is the rapturous song of 
heaven ! 


Even Mr. Thomas Erskine, in his work on Universal 
Pardon, is very decided upon the point of God’s will enter- 
ing into everything, great and small, that takes place on the 
earth. He speaks on this wise. “The laws of nature are 
the continual actings of God. There is no power in the uni- 
verse but his, and where his power is, there is he. He made 
the clay, and sustains it with all its qualities, and in what- 
ever form it may be; and the cessation of his will that it 
should exist, would be the cessation of its existence. The 
uninterrupted actings of that will are the laws of nature, 
and in every one of these actings is the entire Godhead. 
The course of nature, the elements, the order of events, 
the existence and movements of all matter, are the direct 
actings of God. And are not the existence and movement 
of mind, too, his actings? Surely it is so, and it must be so; 
but yet I feel that my will works contrary to his! My will 


ELECTION. 95 


is the sustained creature of his will from moment to moment, 
incapable of a single act without power communicated from 
him, and yet I am conscious that it works contrary to him, 
and is morally responsible for so doing. This is too won- 
derful for me. I cannot attain unto it. With what feelings 
ought [ to regard him to whose infinite mind my individual 
existence, with every particular of my history, through the 
future eternity, has been from all eternity a distinct and 
familiar idea ....I am sure that I have never formed a 
thought, nor uttered a word, nor done a deed, to which he 
has not been most intimately present, and in which he has 
not been himself the acting power, enabling me to speak, 
and think, and do. And here is a great marvel. I am con- 
scious that these thoughts, and words, and deeds, have been 
full of sin, yet my conscience acquits him, and lays the undi- 
vided blame upon myself.”’--On the Unconditional Freeness 
of the Gospel, pp. 81-83. Another writer of the same school, 
Mr. Scott of Woolwich, brings out the same truth with con- 
siderable power and beauty. I can only quote a sentence, 
“ Whatever is done, even when that is committed which is 
in extremest contrariety to the will of God, still, but by the 
power of God, it could not be done. When the murderer 
conceiyes malignity in his breast, He in whom he is living, 
and moving, and having his being, is at that instant sustain- 
ing the capacities of afiection, so turned to evil . . . . the 
very will of the murderer himself is also more than a gift 
once given by God; by God it is at the moment given, for 
by the act of God alone could it also continue to subsist. Is 
anything in the whole process the murderer’s own? That is 
his own exclusively in which the moral character—the evil 
of the act resides. God enables him to think, but it is him- 
self that thinks ; God sustains his faculty of will, his electing 
power ; but it is himself that wil/s, that chooses eyil.”"—Three 
Discourses, p. 24. 


LETTER V. 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE, 


‘* Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will.’’—Epnu,. i. 11. 


My pear Frienp, 

It is of some importance that we should 
settle the real nature of these two things, pre- 
destination and foreknowledge, and ascertain 
which of the two is first. The question is, 
does God fix a thing, simply because he fore- 
knows it, or does he foreknow it because he 
has fixed it? ‘There are vague ideas in men’s 
minds on those points, and it is well to know 
the truth with distinctness. 

I answer then unhesitatingly, that predesti- 
nation must be the foundation of foreknowl- 
edge. God foreknows everything that takes 
place, because he has fixed it. In proof of 
this I remark, . 

1. The opposite of this ts an impossibility. 
To fix a thing is to make that thing certain to 
come to pass, which, but for that fixing, would 
not have come to pass. If then there be any 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 97 


kind of foreknowledge before predestination, it 
is simply the foreknowledge that the thing 
which he desires would not come to pass, un- 
less he sees fit to fix it.* God knew all that 


* “For the decree of predestination, in as far as the order 
of intention is concerned, no foreknowledge is required or 
ought to be presupposed beyond the simple intelligence of 
all things which are possible, seeing this decree depends on 
no cause, reason, or condition, but purely on the will of him 
who decrees.”——Ames, Medulla Theologie, p.106. I add also 
the following passage from Barnes’ Notes on the Kpistles, 
It is a comment on Eph.i. 5. “The word used (mpv0p¢2w) 
means properly ¢o set bownds before; and then to pre-deter- 
mine. ‘There is the essential idea of setting bounds or lim- 
its, and of doing this beforehand. It is not that God de- 
termined to do it when it was actually done, but that he 
intended to do it beforehand. No language could express 
this more clearly, and I suppose this interpretation is gene- 
rally admitted. Even by those who deny the doctrine of 
particular election, it is not denied that the word here used 
means to pre-determine ; and they maintain that the sense is, 
that God had pre-determined to admit the Gentiles to the 
privileges of his people. Admitting then that the meaning 
is, to predestinate in the proper sense, the only question is, 
who are predestinated? To whom does the expression ap- 
ply? Is it to nations, or to individuals? In reply to this, 
in addition to the remarks already made, I would observe, 
(1.) That there is no specification of nations here as such, 
no mention of the Gentiles in contradistinction from the 
Jews. (2.) Those referred to were those included in the word 
‘us,’ among whom Paul was one—but Paul was not a hea- 
then. (3.) The same objection will lie against the doctrine 
of predestinating nations which will lie against predestina- 
ting individuals. (4.) Nations are made up of individuals, 
and the pre-determination must have had some reference to 
individuals. What is a nation but a collection of individu- 
als? There is no such abstract being or thing as a nation; 
and if there was any purpose in regard to a nation, it must 
have had some reference to the individuals composing it. 
He that would act on the ecean, must act on the drops of 
water that make up the ocean; for besides the collection of 


9 


98 LETTER V. 


might possibly have come to pass had he let 
the world alone to act out its iniquity. In all 


drops of water there is no ocean. He that would remove a 
mountain, must act on the particles of matter that compose 
that mountain; for there is no such thing as an abstract 
mountain. Perhaps there was never a greater illusion than 
to suppose that all difficulty is removed in regard to the 
doctrine of election and predestination, by saying that it re- 
fers to nations. What difficulty is lessened? What is 
gained by it? How does it make God appear more amia- 
ble and good? Does it render him less partial, to suppose 
that he has made a difference among nations, than to sup- 
pose he has made a difference among individuals? Does it 
remove any difficulty about the offer of salvation, to suppose 
that he has granted the knowledge of his truth to some na- 
tions, and withheld it from others? The truth is, that all 
the reasoning which has been founded on this supposition, 
has been merely throwing dust in the eyes. If there is any 
well-founded objection to the doctrine of decrees or predes- 
tination, it is to the doctrine at all, alike in regard to nations 
and individuals, and there are just the same difficulties in 
the one case as in the other. But there is no real difficulty in 
either. Who could worship or honor a God who had no 
plan, or purpose, or intention in what he did? Who can 
believe that the universe was formed and is governed with- 
out design? Who can doubt that what God does he always 
meant to do? When, therefore, he converts and saves a 
soul, it is clear that he always intended to do it. He has no 
new plan. It isnot an after-thought. It is not the work of 
chance. If I can find out anything that God has done, I have 
the most certain conviction that he always meant to do it— 
and this is all that is intended by the doctrine of election or 
predestination. What God does, he always meant to do. 
What he permits, he always meant to permit. I may add 
further, that if it is right to do it, it was right to intend to do 
it. If there is no injustice or partiality in the act itself, there 
is no injustice or partiality in the intention to perform it. 
If it is right to save a soul, it was always right to intend to 
save it. If it is right to condemn a sinner to woe, it was 
right to intend to do it. Let us then look at the thing itself, 
and if that is not wrong, we should not blame the purpose 
to do it, however long it has been cherished.” Pp, 22-24. 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 99 


that infinity of possibles, he saw that the thing 
he wanted was not to be found. Seeing the 
end from the beginning, he saw that the thing 
he desired would never come to pass unless 
brought into being by a direct act of his own 
will. No other will would desire or could 
effect that which he saw to be best, either in 
regard to persons or events. The thing he 
wanted was not to be found among the poss?- 
bles, but among the tmpossitbles, if matters 
were left to themselves, and to the operation 
of the usual laws. How then shall that which 
is impossible be rendered not only possible but 
certain? Evidently by the direct interference 
of God. God having thus interfered and ar- 
ranged everything according to his wisdom, of 
necessity must know them as to come to pass. 
In other words, he foreknows everything, be- 
cause he has arranged everything. Every- 
thing is certain in his foreknowledge, because 
everything is certain in his arrangements. 
Take the case of a saved sinner, such as 
Saul of Tarsus. In looking forward from 
eternity, God saw that sinner. He saw him 
in his guilt’ and sin. He saw him hastening 
away from himself. He saw that if left to 
himself, or to the usual laws of things, he would 
only go deeper into sin, and farther from him- 


100 LETTER V. 


self. He saw that in such a case his salvation 
was impossible,—that he never would believe, 
and never repent, and never turn. ‘This was 
all that mere foreknowledge could tell. Fore- 
knowledge alone can say nothing as to salva- 
tion. But here predestination comes in. God 
forms a design to bring that man to glory; he 
is a “chosen vessel.” And having this design 
regarding him, he resolves to put forth his 
power, he pre-arranges all his plans concerning 
him, he fixes the day and hour of his conver- 
sion, and thus he foreknows its certainty, 
because he has fore-arranged it. Otherwise 
it could not have been known; nay, it would 
have been an impossibility. 

2. The opposite of this ts an absurdity. 
What can be more absurd than to fiz a thing 
which I already know will come to pass, 
whether I fix it or not? This is truly impu- 
ting foolishness to God. It represents him as 
giving forth a solemn decree, to fix a thing_ 
which is already certain. Asif the queen of 
this realm were giving forth a statute, decree- 
ing that the sun should rise to-morrow, because 
she knew that such would be the case from the 
laws of nature. Is not this a mockery of God ? 
It makes him thus to speak,—* I foreordain 
that such a sinner shall be saved, because I 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 101 


foresee that he will be saved.” Unless, then, 
we impute folly to God, and affirm that there 
is no meaning in the word predestination, we 
must admit that God must foreordain before 
he foreknows, and that he knows everything, 
just because he has fore-arranged everything 
according to his own infinite wisdom and grace. 

These are two arguments which appear to 
me quite conclusive. But let us turn to 
Scripture. I need not again direct your atten- 
tion to the passages already quoted in the pre- 
vious letters I shall rather notice one or two 
on which I have not yet dwelt. Acts ii. 23, 
“Him being delivered by the prrerminaTE 
counsEL and foreknowledge of God, ye have 
taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and 
slain.” Acts iv. 27, “Of a truth against thy 
holy child Jesus, both Herod and Pontius Pi- 
late, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, 
were gathered together for to do whatsoever 
THY HAND AND THY COUNSEL DETERMINED BEFORE 
to be done.” 

On these passages I would offer a few re- 
marks,— 

1. The language is very explicit and plain. 
It is the strongest that could possibly have 
been used to denote fore-ordination. There is 


nothing about it ambiguous or hard to be un- 
Q* 


102 LETTER V. 


derstood. 'T'o take it in any other sense would 
be absurd. The doctrine may be inscrutable, 
but the words are plain. And is the nature 
of the doctrine a reason for our refusing to 
take the words of God in their natural and 
simple sense ? 

2. Admitting our views of fore-ordination to 
be true, could they have been expressed in 
language different from this, or from that 
employed in the Epistle to the Romans and 
Ephesians? Had we been left to choose out 
words for setting forth our views, we could 
not have desired any other than these. Can 
our opponents say the same? Are these words 
the most natural and appropriate for express- 
ing their views? 

3. This determinate counsel is said posi- 
tively to have fixed certain events in Christ’s 
history. Now, if some were fixed, we have 
reason to conclude that all others also were. 
Yet in the life and death of Christ we see 
‘nothing, but what seemed outwardly to occur 
in the natural order of events. It will cer- 
tainly be conceded that the will of the Son of 
God was free from first to last. Yet we learn 
that what he voluntarily did and suffered was - 
also pre-determined by God. In his case there 
was entire free-will, yet entire pre-ordination. 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 103 


What then becomes of the objection to predes- 
tination, arising from its supposed interference 
with the free-will of moral agents? In Christ’s 
life and death we have a series of pre-ordained 
events, and at the same time a series of free 
actions. And this is a sufficient answer to the 
current objection. We may not be able to 
reconcile these things, yet there they stand 
palpably before us. 

4. 'I'his determinate counsel is said to have 
delivered up Christ into the hands of men. 
Pilate and Herod, &c., are said to have done 
what God’s hand and counsel had pre-deter- 
mined. Here is something still more striking. 
The deeds of these wicked men are said to 
have come to pass according to this counsel, 
yet these deeds are not the less wicked, and 
those men are not the less responsible. Here, 
again, we have another objection answered, or 
at least silenced. ‘To reconcile these things 
may be difficult, yet the statement in this pas- 
sage is plain. What pride and folly then are 
there in the questions and cavils which we so 
often hear in connection with this doctrine. 
“If God has arranged everything, man’s will 
_is not free. How can the sinner be responsi- 
ble? How can he be plied with motives and 
arguments? Of what use is it to do anything 


104 LETTER V. 


towards an end, if all be arranged beforehand 
by. another. How unjust is it in God to warn 
and invite sinners, when he has fixed every- 
thing already.” All these cavils have their 
answer in the passages quoted above. It is 
vain to think of putting questions such as 
these, till those strong and explicit declara- 
tions have been explained away or denicd. 
They teach us plainly that our world’s history, 
in all things great and small, is a history of 
events pre-ordained by God from eternity, yet 
at the same time coming to pass by the free 
agency of man. ‘This pre-ordination is the 
effect and the expression of God’s will, yet it 
does not in the least interfere with man’s re- 
sponsibility ; nor does it suppose any violence 
done to the will of man. 

It was certain that the ten tribes were to 
revolt, for it was predicted long before; but 
did that make their revolt less voluntary? It 
was certain that Israel was to apostatize, and 
to be carried captive to Babylon, but did that 
make their apostasy less voluntary or less sin- 
ful, or Nebuchadnezzar’s act of carrying them 
captive less free? It was certain that Christ 
was to be born at Bethlehem, but did that 
make the coming of his parents to that town 
less voluntary? It was certain that Judas 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 105 


was to betray Christ, for it had been predicted 
by David in the Psalms long before, but did 
that lessen the sin of Judas, or make his act 
less free? In the same way I might go over 
every prophecy in Scripture, and ask the same 
question. And I wonder greatly what the 
answer of our opponents would be. How can 
they reconcile with their ideas of free agency 
the fact that the sin of Judas was predicted 
by the Holy Spirit, as certain, one thousand 
years before it came to pass? Was Judas a 
mere machine, or was God the author of his 
sin ? : 

But it will be said, Are we not told that this 
election or predestination is according to fore- 
knowledge? (1 Pet.i.2; Rom. viii.29.) In 
reference to the first two of these passages, I 
would remark that the word ‘ foreknowledge,” 
in the second verse, in the original is the same 
as that rendered ‘ fore-ordained” in the twen- 
tieth. Now, in the latter of these (20th,) there 
can be no doubt that it means pre-ordination, 
for it refers to Christ as the appointed Lamb ; 
and if so, then it is impossible to suppose that 
the word foreknowledge, in the 2d, refers 
simply to foreseeing, and nothing more. Or 
there is another view that may be taken of it. 
I quote from a tract which I wrote some time 


106 LETTER V. 


ago. ‘There are some who deny this choos- 
ing. They are so zealous for man’s free-will, 
that they will not admit of free-will in God. 
‘All the choosing they will allow God to exer- 
cise is the choosing of those who he foreknows 
will turn to him—~. e., choosing those who first 
choose him. They quote in defence, 1 Pet. i. 2, 
‘elect according to the foreknowledge of God 
the Father ;’ and they ask, Is not this choosing 
according to foreknowledge? Yes, beyond all 
doubt it is. But of what is the foreknowl- 
edge? Isit of the evil or the good? Cer- 
tainly of the ev7/ ; for what else was there to 
foreknow ? God, foreknowing all the cireum- 
stances of the case—the evil of the whole race 
of Adam—that there was nothing but evil 
about any, no desire even to turn or believe, 
nothing but absolute corruption, enmity, help- 
lessness, and death,—God foreseeing all this, 
chose some out of this mass of wickedness. 
And thus they are ‘ elect according to the fore- 
knowledge of God.’ ”* 

But then we are asked to look at Rom. viii. 
29, ‘“Whom he did foreknow he also did pre- 
destinate to be conformed to the image of his 
Son.” Now, to this the very same answers 


* Kelso Tracts, No. 82, p. 2. 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 107 


might be made as in reference to the preceding. 
But in addition to these let me remark, that 
the word ‘“ foreknow,”’ means not simply to 
know beforehand, but to ‘fix the choice 
upon.”* The meaning of the passage is then 
evidently,— whom God set his choice upon, 
them he predestinated to be conformed to the 
image of his Son. These saints were the ob- 
jects of his eternal choice, and being so, they 
were appointed by him to the honor of being 
made in the image of his own Son. 

But on this I shall not dwell farther. Iwish 
to notice some concessions of our adversaries 
which appear to me to overthrow their whole 
system. ‘They admit that in certain things 
there is a real election. 'They admit, for in- 
stance, that there was a real election of the 
tribe of Levi to the priesthood, and a real elec- 
tion of David to the throne. They admit 
also, that there is a real election of particular 
nations to particular privileges and favors.t 


* The German critics, Schleusner and Kuttner, though 
Neologian and Arminian, give this as the undoubted meaning 
of the passage. 

+ See among others, a book published or republished at 
Glasgow about two years ago, entitled, “The Doctrines of 
the Atonement and Election Considered.” P. 42, &e.  In- 
deed this is not only the admission but the doctrine of almost 
all Arminian writers. Not that they like an election of na- 
tions any better than an election of individuals, but it seems 
to them the only way to the solution of difficulties, which are 
otherwise insoluble. 


108 | LETTER Vv. 


This admission is fatal to their theory. Their 
main prop was, that the election of individuals 
was just another word for favoritism and in- 
justice. Now, if the election of persons be 
unjust, that of nations must be more unjust. 
If the one be inconsistent with man’s responsi- 
bility, so must be the other. If the election 
of persons show an undue partiality, much 
more must the election of nations. For God 
to reveal himself to the Jews, and not to the 
Egyptians, is as much favoritism as for him to 
convert one soul, and not to convert another. 
He did far more for Israel than he did for other 
nations. He brought them near him. He 
gave them his word. He taught them the 
way of forgiveness through the blood of the 
sacrifice. He placed them in circumstances 
of peculiar advantage. He did not do this to 
Babylon or Nineveh, to Assyria or Egypt. 
Can it be wrong then to choose individuals, 
and right to choose nations? Can it be wrong 
not to choose an individual to salvation, and 
yet right not to choose a nation to those privi- 
leges through which alone salvation comes ? 
Can it be right to pass by some nations, and 
yet wrong to pass by individuals? Nations 
are composed of individuals, and to choose a 
nation, is to give the individuals in that na- 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 199 


tion a peculiar advantage which is denied to 
others, an advantage which issues in the eter- 
nal life of thousands. And hence, if there be 
any injustice in the matter, there is more in- 
justice in a national election than in a personal 
one. It will be said, God knew what nations 
would reject his message, and therefore he did 
not send it to them. On this I offer the fol- 
lowing remarks. 

1. A nation being composed of individuals, 
our opponents must maintain that God foresaw 
that every soul in these would reject the truth. 
If not, would it not be hard, upon their theory, 
for God to withhold the gospel from the whole 
nations, if he knew that some in these nations 
would have believed and been saved ? 

2. If these nations are denied the gospel, 
because God foreknew they would reject it, 
then they are condemned for a thing which 
they never did, but which God merely fore- 
saw they would do. Whole nations are treat- 
ed as criminals, rejecters of the gospel, when 
the opportunity was never given them either 
to receive or reject it. I am not aware of 
anything in Calvinism so hard or unjust as 
this. We teach that God punishes men and - 
nations on account of what they actually do, 
not on account of what he foresees they would 

10 


110 LETTER V. 


do if he allowed them the means. This the- 
ory, on the other hand, teaches that whole na- 
tions are condemned to that most fearful of all 
curses, a deprivation of the gospel, not on ac- 
count of their actual sins, but because certain 
things were foreseen which they would have 
done! Now, if God can justly condemn na- 
tions on account of sin not committed, but 
merely foreseen as likely to be committed, 
why may he not condemn sinners to eternal 
death for sins never committed, but only fore- 
seen? Would this be just? Strange that 
men should maintain the justice of depriving 
nations of the gospel for sins which they never 
committed, yet affirm the injustice of God 
choosing a soul to everlasting life according to 
his sovereign will. But this is just one of the 
paradoxes of Arminianism. God chooses some 
to life, it is said, because he foresees they will 
believe, and he does not choose others to life 
because he foresees they will not believe. So 
that it is not faith that saves us, but God’s 
foresight of our faith; nor is it actually unbe- 
lief that ruins us, but God’s foresight of our 
unbelief. 

3. God speaks of sending his messages to 
some who would reject, and of not sending it 
to others who were more likely to have re- 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 111 


ceived it. Ezek. iii. 5,6. “Son of man, go 
get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak 
with my words unto them. For thou art not 
sent to a people of a strange speech, and of an 
hard language, but to the house of Israel : not 
to many people of a strange speech, and of an 
hard language, whose words thou canst not 
understand. Surely had I sent thee to them 
they would have hearkened unto thee.” This 
surely settles the matter. It is not a nation’s 
foreseen willingness to hear that leads God to - 
send them his messengers, nor a nation’s fore- 
seen unwillingness that prevents him sending 
these. It is all according to his own sovereign 
will and purpose. 

It is affirmed that there is a work equally 
in the hearts of all men alike; that God has 
done, and is doing, the very utmost that can 
be done for every,individual of our race; and 
that to maintain anything else is to charge 
God with partiality and injustice, as well as 
to deny the responsibility of man. 

The proof adduced in support of these state- 
ments is a passage in the fifth chapter of Isa- 
jah, ‘‘ What could have been done more to my 
vineyard that I have not done to it? But it 
is remarkable, that this is one of the strongest 
proofs that God did a great deal more for Israel 


112 LETTER V. 


than he did for any other nation. Ue allowed 
the whole world to remain a wilderness, but 
he made them his vineyard. He fenced this 
vineyard, he gathered out the stones thereof, 
and planted it with the choicest vine. ‘ He 
dealt not so with any other nation.”* Was 
this partiality or injustice? Or was this do- 
ing the same thing for all? 

Besides, it is evident that this passage is 
perverted. It does not mean that God at that 
time had done all he could do for Israel. For 
he went on to do much more for them. Not 
only did he not cease to bless them, and to 
strive with them, but he multiplied his bless- 
ings, and increased his strivings with them, 
long after he had uttered the words referred 
to. So that the passage cannot mean that he 
had done all he could; for he proceeded to do 
a great deal more, raising up prophet after 
prophet, giving them line upon line. Nay, 
many of the most gracious words that Israel 
ever heard were spoken after this time. If, 


* Ps, exlvii. 20. God’s peculiar love and favor to Israel 
above all other nations is frequently celebrated in the Psalms 
and in the prophets. And what is the whole book of Deut- 
eronomy but an illustration of this! In the case of Israel 
we see something of what God's “ utmost” was. Did all the 
nations of the earth experience this same “* utmost” also in 
his dealings with them? If not, why are we told that God 
has done the utmost he could for the whole world ? 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 113: 


then, the verse does not really mean that God 
had actually done his utmost, the inference 
which is founded upon it falls to pieces. 

It is plain, then, that God does more for 
some nations than for others. He did more 
for Israel than he did for Egypt or Babylon. 
He did more for Israel at one time than at an- 
other, for one generation than for another,— 
nay, for one district of Judea than for another, 
—nay, for one individual than for another. 
What else is the meaning of the words of 
Jesus?* ‘“T tell you of a truth, many wid- 
ows were in Israel in the death of Elias; but 
unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto 
Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that 
was a widow. And many lepers were in Is- . 
rael in the time of Hliseus the prophet, and 
none of them was cleansed saving Naaman 
the Syrian.” 

It is not true, then, that God does no more 
for one nation than another, or for one individ- 
ual than another. The opposite of this is, and 
has always been, the fact—a fact frequently 
referred to in Scripture, as a proof of God’s 
right to do according to his will in the armies 


_ * Luke iv. 25. Will any of the deniers of God’s sover- 
eignty furnish a solution of this passage in accordance with 
their views? On their principles, what can the Lord mean? 


10* 


114 LETTER V. 


of heaven and among the inhabitants of the 
earth. No reasonings of men can alter the 
fact; nor can any ingenuity deprive that fact 
‘of its deep and solemn meaning. 

I may perhaps be told that the cause of this 
inequality is in the church of Christ, which 
has not done its duty. Had Christians, it is 
said, acted aright, the world would have been 
converted long ere now. As this is a com- 
mon way of attempting to solve the difficulty, 
it may be well to answer it fully. 

1. Who told them that the cause is wholly 
in the church? Who told them that the world 
would have been converted before this, had 
Christians been what they professed? Grive 
me one single passage of Scripture that states 
this. Surely it is a bold and hazardous asser- 
tion to make, without one verse of Scripture 
to support it. 

9. It is not true. What! Is such a mighty 
and majestic event as the salvation of the 
world to be dependent upon a creature’s will? 
Is it to depend upon man whether the world 
is to be converted or not? Has God no pur- 
pose to be carried out? Has he nothing at all 
to say in the matter? Is he to stand by look- 
ing on, wondering whether it may please his 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 115 


people to put forth their energies and convert 
the world ? 

3. It is unscriptural. There are passages 
of. Scripture which explicitly contradict it. 
What, for instancc, does God mean, when, 
speaking of Corinth, and giving a reason why 
he enjoined Paul to remain and labor there, 
he said, ‘‘I have much people in this city?” 
Again, what is meant by that similar passage, 
‘‘As many as were ordained to eternal life 
believed?” Again, what did our Lord mean, 
when, as if explaining the reason why so many 
rejected him, he said, ‘‘Many are called, but 
few are chosen?” Or what did he mean when 
he said, ‘‘'This gospel of the kingdom must be 
preached among all nations FoR a WITNESS, 
and then shall the end come?” And, lastly, 
what did the Holy Spirit mean, first, by for- 
bidding the apostles to preach the word in Asia, 
and then by prohibiting Paul from passing over 
and preaching the Gospel in Bithynia? (Acts 
xvi. 6, 7.) 

4. It is profane. It is saying that the wick- 
edness of the world cannot be remedied by God, 
but only by the church; that God has no power 
to convert the world; that it is the church 
which has all the power; and that unless she 
pleases to put forth her might and zeal, God 


116 LETTER V. 


can do nothing for the world. Poor world! 
This is sad news indeed! Thy destiny hangs 
upon the power and love of thy fellow-sinners! 
The strength and love of thy God are nothing, 
and can do nothing for thee! Miserable com- 
fort, and miserable comforters, indeed! Yet 
these are the men who speak so much of the 
love of. God, and accuse others of hiding or 
denying it! 

Yet I am far from saying that Christians 
are not much to blame. How little do the 
most zealous amongst us do for souls! How 
much more might we do by prayer, by labor, 
and by holy living! Still I deny that the in- 
activity or unbelief of saints will account for 
the darkness that overspreads the nations. 
Failure in duty on the part of the people of 
God may account for many things, but not 
for all. 

Did the prophets of old fail in their duty, 
and was their failure the reason why so few in 
Israel believed the report, or the reason why 
Nineveh, or Tyre, or Sidon, were not con- 
verted? Was it their fault that they were 
not sent to these cities, and received no mes- 
sage to them? Why were there so many 
prophets raised up within that small territory, 
and not one commissioned to bear tidings to a 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 117 


dark and dying world? Could none be spared? 
Could no more be raised up? Did they refuse 
to go? Had God no message of grace to give 
them for the dark millions of Europe in the 
west, or Asia in the east, or Ethiopia in the 
south ? 

Did the Son of God fail in his duty, in that 
he did not preach the Gospel save to the lost 
sheep of the house of Israel? Why did he 
make this distinction? Why did he never 
travel beyond the narrow Judean circle? Why 
did he command his disciples at first to make 
the same difference, prohibiting them from 
preaching the gospel in any city, either of 
Gentiles or Samaritans? Might not the Sa- 
maritans have said, you tell us that the utmost 
has been done for us that can be done, and 
that all are equally dealt with? Why then 
are we passed by? and why are the messen- 
gers of peace prohibited from entering our 
territory ? What answer could be given, save 
that such was the will and purpose of the God 
only wise ? 

Did the apostles afterwards fail in their duty, 
when, after Pentecost, they went abroad to 
proclaim the everlasting gospel? Was their 
failure the reason why the world was not then 
converted? Are we not plainly taught that 


118 LETTER V. 


such was not the case? Why was it, for 
instance, that when Paul wished to go to 
Bithynia to preach the gospel there, the Spirit 
suffered him not? Was this doing the utmost 
for Bithynia that God could do? Nay, it was 
not even doing the utmost that Paul could 
have done, and wanted to do. 

If the Spirit work equally in all, then it is 
plain that the reason why he succeeds in some 
and fails in others, must be either the one or 
the other of the following :— 

1. It might be because some have naturally 
better hearts than others, more inclined towards 
what is good, made of less rebellious, and more 
believing materials. 'This better class of sin- 
ners, less stout-hearted than others, yield and 
obey, and so are saved! ‘I'he rest, being more 
stubborn and ungodly, hold out and are lost! 
What hope does this give to the chief of sin- 
ners? Where in all this is there the plucking 
of brands from the burning? 

2. Because the Spirit has attempted a work 
beyond his power. He fails in his efforts. ‘The 
sinner has overpowered him, and proved stronger 
than he. ‘The sinner is able to overcome the 
Spirit ; but the Spirit is not able to overcome 
the sinner. The Spirit has done his utmost, 
and failed ! 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 119 


But, finally, to say that the Spirit is doing 
all he can possibly do for the sinner, is either 
a mere quibble, a play upon words, or else it 
is most melancholy profanity. If it mean that 
literally and truly Omnrporencs has been tasked 
to its utmost, and failed in the attempt to con- 
vert a sinner, it is profanity; for it is saying 
that the creature is mightier than the Creator, 
and able to withstand, nay, to overcome, Om- 
nipotence. If, however, this is not what is 
meant, then what else can be the meaning, 
but that God is doing all that he sees fit to do 
for each individual? He is putting forth in 
each the utmost degree of power that his infi- 
nite wisdom sees fit. And ‘if this be all that 
is intended, then there is no dispute between 
us. We are at one. For what is this but 
merely another way of stating Jehovah’s abso- 
lute and all-wise sovereignty in giving or with- 
holding his blessings ? 
® ‘What shall we say then? Is there un- 
righteousness with God? God forbid. For he 
saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I 
will have mercy, and I will have compassion 
on whom I will have compassion. So that it 
is not of him that willeth, nor of him that run- 
neth, but of God that showeth mercy. For 
the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for the 


120 LETTER V. 


game purpose have I raised thee up, that I 
might show my power in thee, and that my 
name might be declared throughout all the 
earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he 
will have mercy, and whom he will he har- 
deneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why 
doth he yet find fault? For who hath resist- 
ed his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou 
that repliest against God? Shall the thing 
formed say to him that formed it, why hast 
thou made me thus? Hath not the potter 
power over the clay, of the same lurnp to make 
one vessel unto honor, and another unto dis- 
honor? What if God, willing to show his 
wrath, and to make his power known, endure 
with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction; and that he might make 
known the riches of his glory on the vessels of 
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 
even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews 
only, but also of the Gentiles?”’—Rom. ix. 
16-24. F 

Let me conclude this letter, by calling your 
attention to the following narrative. If I am 
not mistaken, the conversation related took 
place more than half a century ago. It is, 
however, very suitable as an illustration of 
some of the points discussed in the preceding 


f 
A 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 121 


pages. The chief speaker was a minister of 
an Independent congregation. Being once on 
a journey, he was overtaken by a stranger who 
urged some objections to predestination, and 
among others, that it made God unjust. ‘ Be- 
fore that can be admitted,” said the minister, 
‘you must prove that God owes eternal life to 
any of his fallen creatures; and further, that 
the vindication of a mortal is essential to the 
equity of a God. Besides, the question is not, 
What are the difficulties connected with the 
doctrine, or can a worm solve them all? but, 
Is this doctrine of predestination scripturally 
and philosophically true, or is it not? The 
difficulties of the subject will prove nothing 
against the fact; and he that brings the legis. 
lation of his Creator before the tribunal of his 
own understanding, should first be able to 
‘measure the length of his eternity, the breadth 
of his immensity, the height of his wisdom, 
and the depth of his decrees. Is it not a sad 
evidence of human depravity, that creatures 
of a day will sit in judgment on spiritual and 
eternal things, as if the Author of the great 
mystery of godliness were altogether such an 
one as themselves !” 

“T hope you will not be offended,” replied 
_the gentleman, “if I declare, notwithstanding 
11 


122 LETTER V. 


all you advance, I do not, I cannot believe in 
this doctrine of predestination.” 

‘And I hope,” rejoined Mr. C., “that you 
will not be offended if I declare, I am quite of 
opinion you do believe in it.” 

‘‘T beg, Sir,” said the other, “ you will ex- 
plain yourself.” 

‘Tf you will favor me with the short answer 
of Yes or No, to a few explicit questions I 
shall take the liberty to propose,” replied Mr. 
C., “I have little doubt but I can prove what 
I have affirmed.” 

‘‘ Tt will afford me great satisfaction,” said 
the other, ‘‘to comply with your proposal.” 

Mr. C. then began, ‘Are you of opinion 
that all sinners will be saved ?” 

‘‘ By no means,” said the gentleman. 

‘But you have no doubt,” added Mr. C., 
“it will be formally and finally determined, at 
the day of judgment, who are to be saved, and 
who are to perish ?” 

‘“‘T am certainly of that opinion,” replied 
the stranger. , 

“‘T would ask, then,” continued Mr. C., ‘is 
the great God under any necessity of waiting 
till these last awful assizes, in order to deter- 
mine who are the righteous that are to be 
saved, and the wicked who are to perish ?” 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 123 


‘By no means,” said the other; “for he 
certainly knows already.” 

‘When do you imagine,” asked Mr. C., 
“that he first attained this knowledge ?” 

Here the gentleman paused, and hesitated 
a little; but soon answered, “He must have 
known from all eternity.” 

“Then,” said Mr. C., “it must have been 
fixed from all eternity,” 

“That by no means follows,” replied the 
other. 

“Then it follows,” added Mr. C., “that he 
did not know from all eternity, but only gwess- 
ed, and happened to guess right: for how can 
Omniscience know what is yet uncertain 2” 

Here the stranger began to perceive his dif- 
ficulty, and after a short debate, confessed, it 
should seem, it must have been fixed from 
eternity. 

“Now,” said Mr. C., “one question more 
will prove that you believe in predestination 
as wellasI. You have acknowledged, what 
can never be disproved, that God could not 
know from eternity who shall be saved, unless 
it had been fixed from eternity. If then it 
was fixed, be pleased, Sir, to inform me who 
fixed it ?” 

The gentleman candidly acknowledged he 


124 LETTER V. 


had never taken this view of the subject be- 
fore, and said he believed it would be the last 
time he should attempt to oppose predestina- 
tion to eternal life. 

With this illustration I leave this subject, 
which I have handled at some length, both be- 
cause I believe it to be important in itself, and 
because right views of it lie at the foundation 
of the Gospel, and of salvation by free grace. 
If there be no predestination, there can be no 
‘names written in the book of life from the 
foundation of the world;” and if so, then who 
can be saved? 

I am, yours, &c. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“Tn very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to 
show in thee my power, that my name may be declared 
throughout all the earth.\—Exod. 1x. 16. 

“Seeing his days are determined, the number of his 
months are with thee; thou hast appointed his bounds that 
he cannot pass.”—Job xiv. 5. 

“Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and be- 
fore thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, 
and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.’—Jer. 1. 5. 

“And hath determined the times before appointed, and 
the bounds of their habitation.”—Acts xvii. 26. 

“Of him, and through him, and to him are all things.”— 
Rom. xi. 36. 

“The called according to his purpose.”—Rom, viii. 28. 

“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children 
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure 
of his will.’——Kph. 1. 5. 

“Being predestinated according to the purpose of him 


PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE. 125 


who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” — 
Eph. i. 11. 

“ According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in 
Christ Jesus our Lord.”—Eph. iii. 1. 

“God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salva- 
tion by our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Thess. v. 9. 

“God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.”— 
2 Thess. i. 13. 


NOTE. 


No expression can be stronger than that of Acts xili. 48: 
“ As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” How 
then do our opponents get rid of it? By saying that it 
means, “ as many as were disposed for eternal life, believed !” 
Any one who knows the Greek language, or can consult a 
lexicon, will have no difficulty in seeing that such cannot be 
the meaning of the passage. I know of no commentator 
who gives any sanction to such an utter perversion of words. 
If it does not mean “ordained or appointed,” it can only 
mean “commanded,” for these are its two meanings in the 
New Testament, as any reader may see, by consulting the 
following passages :—Matt. xxviii. 16; Luke vii. 8; Acts xv. 
2, Xxil. 10, xxvili. 33. In these passages it is the simple 
verb rasow that occurs, Its compound dtaraccw has just the 
Same meaning. See Matt. xi.1; Luke iii. 31, viii. 55, xvii. 
9,10; Acts vil. 44. The only passages which can have the 
slightest bearing upon the proposed perversion of the pas- 
sage is 1 Cor. xvi. 15: “They have addicted themselves,” &c. 
But this is the active voice of the verb, and its meaning is 
determined by the pronoun themselves, which it governs. 
Whereas in Acts xii. 48 the verb is in the passive voice, 
and must refer not to their doing something for themselves, 
but to something done for them by another. To fix myself, 
and to be fixed by another, are very different things. 


11* 


LETTER VI. 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 


“The Church of God which he hath purchased with his own 
blood.”’—Acts xx. 28. 


My pear FRienp, 


I do not intend to enter fully upon the sub- 
ject of Christ’s work. ‘This would require a 
much fuller discussion than I am able at pres- 
ent to bestow upon it. It would in truth re- 
quire a volume by itself. 

This, however, is the less necessary on ac- 
count of Dr. Candlish’s admirable work on the 
atonement, to which I would, in passing, call 
your attention. You will find sufhcient ma- 
terials there to enable you to judge for your- 
self on this momentous doctrine. All that I 
mean to do is, merely to advert to one or two 
points which may tend to establish you in the 
truth, and assist you in disentangling yourself 
from the snares laid for unwary feet in the 
present day. 

I set out then with asserting that Christ is 
said in Scripture to have given himself asa 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 137 


ransom and substitute for his Church, and to 
have done so in a way such as he has not done 
for any other beings. 

This seems implied in the very first prom- 
ise,—the promise regarding the woman’s seed. 
Here we have at the very outset the identify- 
ing of Christ and his people,—the setting 
them before us as entirely one with him. For 
while it is especially Christ himself that is the 
woman’s seed, it is doubtless also his church 
as one with him. His destinies and theirs are 
thus from the beginning represented as entirely 
one. We recognize here not only the Re- 
deemer, but the chosen people, the people 
given him of the Father, with whom he iden- 
tifies himself, for whom he is to substitute 
himself, and in whose behoof he is to do and 
to suffer,—to bruise the serpent’s head, and to 
submit to the bruising of his own heel. 

Or to present it in another aspect. Adam 
stands before us as the figure of Christ, Eve 
as the representative of the Church or ‘ seed 
of the woman;” for it is evident that it is not 
all who are her seed according to the flesh that 
are here called her “‘ seed,” but only the chosen 
ones between whom and the seed of the ser- 
pent a deadly warfare was to exist. As there 
existed then a peculiar relationship between 


128 LETTER VI. 


Adam and Eve, so there exists between Christ 
and his Church. And as Eve was given to 
Adam by God as his wife, so is the Church 
given by the Father to Christ as his bride. 
Thus two personages stand before us from the 
beginning,—Christ and his Church, the Bride- 
groom and the Bride. We find them meeting 
us at every turn and in every page of sacred 
history. It is with their history that the 
whole Bible may be said to be occupied; and 
in the glorious consummation when the Lord 
returns, we find the same two personages that 
are seen at the beginning, coming forth in visi- 
ble glory and brightness,—the long absent 
Bridegroom returning to the beloved of his 
heart, and sitting down with her in festal tri- 
umph at the marriage-supper of the Lamb. 
Who chooses this bride for Christ? It is 
the Father. Who gives this bride to him? 
It is the Father. She is his eternal choice. 
She is his eternal gift to his beloved Son. She 
must then be the object of the Father’s per- — 
sonal affection and regard. And as we know 
that this bride is composed of the great multi- 
tude that no man can number, so we are sure 
that each individual composing that multitude 
must be known and loved of the Father in a 
peculiar way. In the Father’s purpose she is 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 129 


from eternity the Bride, just as in that purpose 
the Son is from eternity the Bridegroom. She 
then must be a distinct object in the Father’s 
eye, just as much as he is. And if so in the 
Father’s eye, so also in the Son’s. If she was 
an object of personal and peculiar affection to 
the Father, so also must she be to the Son. 
Yea, if we may so speak, even more so to the 
Son than to the Father. [or she is Azs own 
in a peculiar sense,—his own in the Father’s 
gift, his own in _ everlasting-betrothment,— 
his own in a way such as she can be to no 
other in the universe. 

But the bride is a captive, and must be won 
from the enemy. She is a lawful captive, and 
a ransom must be paid. She is lost, and must 
be found. She is naked, and must be clothed. 
She is diseased, and must be cured. She is 
polluted, and must be washed. And who is 
to do all this for her? 'The Son himself. Her 
betrothed bridegroom. He as the bridegroom 
is to redeem her as his bride. All that he 
does for her, in seeking, ransoming, freeing, 
clothing, cleansing, he does for her as his bride, 
and because she is already betrothed to him in 
the Father’s purpose. And will he go to re- 
deem a bride whom he does not love? And 
will he love one whom he does not personally 


130 LETTER VI. 


know? Will he work a work for one whom 
he knows not? Will he shed his blood upon a 
vague peradventure that some lost ones will 
choose him and cleave to him? Will he pay 
down a priceless ransom, and then leave it to 
chance, or what is worse than even chance, 
man’s sinful will, to determine who is to be 
his bride ? 

The work of Christ is the work not of a man 
for men, but of a bridegroom for his bride. 

Next to Christ himself, it is his bride who is 
most glorious in the Father’s eyes. It is she 
who is so specially to share the love of God,— 
the love of the Father and the Son; ‘as the 
Father hath loved me, so have I loved you.” 
It is she who is to be brought nearest to the 
Godhead of any created being. It is she who 
is to share the royalty of the Son of God, to 
sit upon his throne, to wear his crown, and to 
wield with him the sceptre of universal domin- 
ion. From first to last. then she stands out 
before the Father’s eyes, and also before ours, 
as next to Christ, the one glorious and promi- 
nent object in Scripture. It has been well said 
that ‘‘ time, past, present, or future, as regards 
the Church, is but the unfolding of the one 
tHoucHT of God concerning the elect.” | 

The Father has prepared, and the Son has 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 431 


purchased, a throne for her; and to raise her 
from the miry clay to that everlasting throne 
is the work which the Son of God under- 
took and accomplished. That work did all for 
her. It did not merely leave her within the 
reach of salvation—it made salvation sure, 
nay, it made glory sure, it made the crown and 
kingdom sure. The bridegroom came forth 
out of his royal palace to bring in the bride 
which the Father had given him. He loosed 
her cords, he opened her prison doors, he bound 
up her wounds, he threw his mantle over her, 
he made her meet for the kingdom, and when 
the day arrives when he shall appear in glory, 
he shall conduct her in joyful triumph into the 
kingdom prepared for her from the foundation 
of the world. 

Or take another view. It is not merely 
Christ who is said to have died. His people 
are. spoken of as dying with him. Very fre- 
quently does the Apostle Paul dwell on this 
idea,—representing the church as crucified 
with Christ, dying with him, rising with him, 
ascending up with him and sitting with him 
in heavenly places. In Jehovah’s eye his peo- 
ple were with him all the time, from his com- 
ing into the world. He stood in their stead, 
and they were viewed as one with him from 


132 LETTER VI. 


his cradle to his cross, and from his cross to his 
throne. They were taken up to the cross with 
him. They died there with him. They went 
down to the grave with him. ‘They came up 
again along with him. They ascended up 
along with him. Now I confess I cannot un- 
derstand these expressions unless I believe in 
a definite number, for whom all this was 
specially done. I cannot see how it is possible 
for the atonement to be indefinite, so long as I 
read that in all its parts the church was asso- 
ciated with Christ. This renders definiteness 
an essential element in the idea of redemption. 

But bow can there be any truth in all this, 
if Christ had no special object in view in dying, 
save merely to render salvation possible to all, 
but certain to none? In that case he could . 
- only die as a man for his fellow-men—not as a 
substitute, not as a representative, not as a 
surety, not as a shepherd, not as a bridegroom 
at all. I put it to you, my friend, which of 
these is most in accordance with the word of 
God. Being myself what is called a millenna- 
rian, I confess this seems an important view, 
and weighs very strongly with me; but I am 
sure that even with others it cannot fail to 
have its weight. 

It is the view which would present itself to 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 133 


an eye looking from the past eternity into the 
future, contemplating the glorious issue. And 
it is the view which we hereafter shall, I doubt 
not, more fully realize when we get into that 
eternity, and begin to look back upon the whole 
finished scheme. Viewed from either of these 
points, the far past or the far future, the thing 
seems striking and vivid. I confess, that, 
standing as we do in the present in the very 
midst of the scenes, with the smoke, and confu- 
sion, and sin of the world around us, seeing 
but through a glass darkly, we may find it 
more difficult to realize this. But faith can 
rise out of these dark elements below. It can 
transport itself to either of these eternal emi- 
nences of which I speak ; and, looking at things 


- as God looks upon them, contemplating results 


as He does, it will be able to realize God’s 
purpose regarding the church in all the differ- 
ent stages of its progress now, as if it had ac- 
tually been presented in visible brightness, and 
the other parts which confuse us hidden from 
view. ‘The moment when the statuary is hew- 


ing out his statue is not the best time for as- 


certaining what he means. You must either 
look at his designs, or you must wait till he 
has finished his work. ) 
In connection with this, I may appropriately 
12 


134 LETTER VI. 


introduce here some of the many passages which 
represent Christ’s work as a peculiar one on 
behoof of his church. 

“Tam the good shepherd; the good shep- 
herd giveth his life for the sheep,” John x. 11. 

“T am the good shepherd, and know my 
sheep, and am known of mine,” John x. 14. 

“T lay down my life for the sheep,” John 
Be ieee) 

“Ye believe not, because ye are not of my 
sheep,” John. x. 26. 

“ Thou hast given him power over all flesh, 
that he should give eternal life to as many as 
thou hast given him,” John xvii. 2. 

“T pray for them, I pray not for the world, 
but for them whom thou hast given me,” xvii. 9. 

‘‘ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ 
also loved the church and gave himself for it,” 
Eph. v. 25. 

In these passages we hear Christ repeatedly 
speaking of those whom he calls sheep, and 
telling us he gave his life for them—for them 
in a peculiar sense, as he did for no other. Ht. 
is as a shepherd that he dies with a shepherd’s 
love and a shepherd care,—for his sheep as 
such. | 

Again, he prays for his own, for those whom 
the Father has given him, Nor FOR THE WORLD. 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 135 


Can words be plainer? Here is certainly a 
distinction made, ‘‘I pray not for the world.” 
Here, at least, is something peculiar, for his 
church alone.* And one such peculiarity is 
enough, at least, to answer the objections of 
adversaries. Some have said, Oh, but he prays 
for the world in another place. I answer, he 
does not. But even though he had, here is at 
least one prayer of Christ, in which he ex- 
pressly leaves out the world. And who can 
say how much virtue there was in that one 
short prayer? Is not the way in which he 
prayed, an illustration of the way in which he 


* A small pamphlet fell lately under our eye by an au- 
thor who prints his name in Syriac characters on the title- 
page. The reason for such a peculiar display of learning is 
not very obvious, and cannot be guessed at without a breach 
of charity. Very possibly the writer can read the Peschito, 
but it was not worth his while to take such a way of making 
this known. It looks ill, and savors of affectation. The ob- 
ject of the book is to show that when Christ said, “ I pray 
not for the world,” he merely meant “I pray not for the 
wnity of the world.” The author tells us that unity would 
be a curse, net a blessing, to the world, and that, therefore, 
while Christ prayed for unity to the church, he prayed for 
the opposite to the world. So that when he said, “I pray 
not for the world,” he was really praying most effectually for 
the world! ‘his is certainly the very extreme of one-sided 
criticism,—criticism whose sole object seems to be to bend 
the Scriptures to a human theory,—to put them to the tor- 
ture, in order to prevent their bearing witness against cer- 
tain favorite doctrines. This commentator actually makes 
the Lord to pray that the world’s strife and discord, that is, 
the world’s sin, may be perpetuated: nay, that peace and 
harmony may be prevented; and he gives it as his opinion, 
that unity would not be a blessing but a curse to the world! 


136 LETTER VI. 


died. Are not those for whom he prayed, the 
same as them for whom he died? 

Again, Christ is said to have loved the 
church as husbands love their wives. This 
surely is decisive. The love of the husband 
for the wife is such as he bears to no other. 
So is the love of Christ. And as was his love, 
even so was the purpose of his death. It is 
somewhat startling to be told that Christ loved 
the world just as much, and in the same way 
as he loved the church,—that ‘the seed of the 
woman” had no greater share in his purpose 
and affection than “the seed of the serpent,” 
—that it is man and not God that determines 
who are to constitute the members of that 
church,—that instead of their names being 
‘written in the book of life, from the founda- 
tion of the world,” they are merely written 
down at the time when they themselves deter- 
mine to believe and be converted. 

But over against all this are set those many 
passages in which the word a// occurs, and in 
which we read “ Christ died for all.” Now, 
with reference to this, I ask your attention to 
a few remarks. 

1. The passages I have already quoted are 
quite explicit, and cannot be overthrown. They 
are too plain to be mistaken. And if our oppo- 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 137 


nents would take them in their simplicity, I 
confess I should have less fear with regard to 
others. But this they refuse to do. 

2. ladmit there are difficulties with regard 
to some of the passages in which the word all 
occurs. But I would rather confess the diffi- 
culty, and wait for further light, than at once 
proceed to do violence to the passage itself, or 
make its difficulty a reason for doing violence 
to others. 

3. Talso admit that there are passages in 
which there can be no doubt as to the univer- 
sality of the terms. These you will find enu- 
merated by Dr. Candlish, to whose work I 
again refer you. Such passages, says he, re- 
fer to the discovery which the work of Christ 
is “ fitted to make of the Divine character, 
especially of the Divine compassion and benev- 
olence, and are to be regarded as giving inti- 
mation of the widest possible universality. 
This is particularly the case in that most bles- 
sed statement, ‘God so loved the world,’ &e. : 
for we would be little disposed to qualify or 
explain away the term ‘world,’ as here em- 
ployed. We would rather rejoice in this text, 
as asserting that the gospel has a most gra- 
cious aspect to the world, or to mankind as 
such.” P. 26. 

12* 


138 LETTER VI. 


4. With regard to the meaning of the word 
Call” in the Bible, especially in the New 'Tes- 
tament, a few remarks will be necessary. It 
occurs there iba of 1200 ‘times, as any 
scholar will find by consulting his Greek Con- 
cordance. ‘I‘hese 1200 texts may be subdivi- 
ded into four classes. 

Class I. consists of a very large number of 
passages, several hundreds, I am sure, in which 
it is undeniable that the word cannot mean lit- 
erally all. I give one or two specimens. We 
are told in one place, (Mark i. 5,) ‘‘ there went 
out unto him a// the land of Judea and they 
of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him,” 
é&c. This we know was not literally the case. 
Iivery individual in the whole land did not 
come; for we are expressly told in another 
place, (Luke vii. 30,) that ‘the Pharisees and 
lawyers were not baptized of him.” Again we 
read, (Mark i. 37,) ‘‘ All men seek thee.” 
Literally this was not true. Every individual 
in the human race, or even every individual in 
Judea, did not seek him. Again, we have 
such passages as these :—‘* He told me all that 
ever I did,”—“ all things are lawful to me”— 
‘Call our fathers were under the cloud”—*“ all 
they who are in Asia are turned away from 
me”—‘‘ ye know all things.” 


i 


alts 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 189. 


Class II. consists of passages in which it is 
very doubtful whether ad be literally universal. 
It may or it may not. ‘There is nothing posi- 
tively to determine it. ‘‘ Avery nation under 
heaven,” Acts ii. 5. ‘¢ Add they which dwelt 
in Asia,” Acts xix. 10. ‘‘ The care of all the 
churches,” 2 Cor. ii. 28. ‘All that dwell 
upon the earth shall worship him,” Rev. xiii. 8. 
These are specimens of a very large class of 
doubtful passages, which, of course, can prove 
nothing as to the literal meaning of al. 

Class III. consists of passages which are only 
determined to be literal by the context, not by 
the expressions themselves. ‘The whole pas- 
sage, taken together, fixes the literal univer- 
sality. But were it not for that, the literal 
meaning would have been doubtful. ‘ All ye 
are brethren,” Matt. xxiii. 8. ‘ All these 
things shall come to pass,” Matt. xxiv. 6. 
‘¢They all slumbered and slept,” Matt. xxv. 5. 
‘¢ When Jesus had finished all these sayings,” 
Matt. xxvi. 1. In all these passages, and 
many similar ones, it is not the word ad/ itself 
that points out the strict universality; it is 
some other word that occurs along with it, 
such as “all ¢hese things’—‘‘all these say- 
ings.” In these cases, while in one sense the 
word has a universal sense, in another it has a 


140 LETTER VI.. 


limited one—limited by the words with which 
it is connected. It means all of a certain class, 
all of a certain number. So that we gather 
from these, that when a// is to.be understood 
literally, we must learn from the context what 
“all” it is that is to be understood—whether 
all of one nation, or all of another—whether 
all of one class, or all of another. And this 
consideration answers at once the oft-repeated 
argument, which consists merely in vocifera- 
ting the word ‘‘all,” as if the loudness or the 
frequency of the outcry were enough to demon- 
strate the meaning of the word. That mean- 
ing must be determined in each separate case 
by the other words, or other parts of the pas- 
sage. 

Class IV. are the passages in question, 
which are supposed to imply a universal atone- 
ment. On these I cannot enter here. They 
are, in point of numbers, the fewest of all the 
four classes. Our opponents say, that they 
must be interpreted literally. Let us see how 
the proof stands. 

There are upwards of 1200 passages, in 
which the word ‘all” occurs in the New Tes- 
tament. Of these a very large number cannot 
possibly mean literally all. Another large 
number are exceedingly doubtful. Another 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 141 


large number are only proved to mean lite- 
rally “all” by the context. The fewest in 
number of these four classes are those which 
are claimed by our opponents! You may 
judge of the strength of their argument. 

The result of this statement is simply this, 
that the mere occurrence of the word ‘“all” 
does not determine the question at all. Noth- 
ing but a careful examination of the whole 
passage can settle it. Do not then, I beseech 
you, be deceived by the loud repetitions of the 
words ali and every which you hear, and which 
are intended to supply the place of more solid 
proof. 

I should like to have entered into an exami- 
nation of some of the passages often rested on. 
But this is impossible. I select one, as being 
one of the strongest, and also one that affords 
an admirable illustration of the necessity of 
looking at the context to determine the mean- 
ing of the word. It is Heb. ii. 9, ‘‘ He tasted 
death for every man.” It is literally ‘for 
each ;” there is nothing about men in the origi- 
nal. The question then arises, what does the 
apostle mean by “each?” The context must 
settle it. It either carries us back to the ‘heirs 
of salvation,” or forward to the ‘many sons.” 
For obviously it must refer to some of whom 


142 LETTER VI. 


the apostle was speaking. Now, he was only 
speaking of the angels and of the many sons, 
the heirs of salvation, and of no other. It can- 
not be meant of the former, and therefore it 
must be of the latter. ‘They may be said to 
be the peculiar theme of the whole chapter, 
and any one following the apostle’s reasoning, 
would naturally understand this expression to 
refer to them. It is straining it to refer to any 
others. If it does refer to others, it might as 
well refer to angels; more naturally so than to 
the world, for he is speaking of them, but not 
of the world at all. The fifteenth chapter of 
1st Corinthians is an illustration of this. The 
apostle is treating of the resurrection of the 
saints, and not of the wicked. It is only by 
keeping this in view that his statements there 
regarding the “all” can be fully understood. 
So the each (7«s) here referred to must be the 
each of those he was speaking of. And very 
strikingly is the singular used here,—not sim- 
ply as individualizing the saints, but as doing 
so in connection with the whole work of Christ. 
All that Christ did, he did for each. His whole 
work, his whole propitiation, his whole tasting 
of death, belongs to each, just as much as if 
only one had been saved. The whole of what 
Christ did is the property of each saint. His 


THE WORK OF CHRIST. 143 


work is not made up of so many parts, or 
extending to certain dimensions, greater or 
smaller, according to the number of the saved; 
so that each of them only gets a part of him- 
self, and a part of his work. No. His work 
is such, that each gets the whole of it,—the 
whole of his glorious self, and the whole of 
his glorious work. Each gets the benefit of 
his tasting death, as if endured for himself 
singly and alone. 

But I cannot dwell longer upon this topic. 
I have merely thrown out a few hints} which 
may lead to stablish you in the faith, and may 
assist you in repelling the objections of oppo- 
nents. 

The real question before us is, was the atone- 
ment of Christ a definite or indefinite thing ?* 
That is the essence and marrow of the contro- 
versy. It is upon this that the case hinges. 
There is a mighty difference between a defi- 
nite and an indefinite work. Search the 
Scriptures, and see if the language in which 
they speak does not necessarily imply some- 
thing definite and certain,x—something which 
infallibly secured the object for which the 

* T greatly prefer the words definite and indefinite, as de- 
scriptive of the opposite systems, than the words limited and 


universal, The former are far more exactly expressive of 
the real ta at issue than the latter, 


144 LETTER VI. 


Son of God took flesh and died. 'That was, 
you know, “to bring many sons into glory.” 
I am, yours, &c. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“For the transgression of my people was he stricken.”— 
Isaiah liii. 8. 

“Tam the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his 
life for the sheep.”—John x. 11. 

« Ag the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; 
and I lay down my life for the sheep.”—x. 15. 

“ Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.’—John 
x. 26. 

“Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may 
give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”—John 
xvii. 3. 

“T have manifested thy name unto the men which thou 
gavest me out of the world.”—John xvii. 6. 

“JT pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them 
whom thou hast given me.”—xvii. 9. 

“Those that thou gavest me have I kept.”—xvil. 12. 

“For their sakes I sanctify myself.”—xvii. 19. 

“Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with 
his own blood.”—Acts xx. 29. 

“ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
church, and gave himself for it.".—Eph. v. 25. 


| 


| 


LE TE ReeVi ll: 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 


“ By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it 
is the gift of God.’’—Eph. ii. 8. 
“ Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.”—Rom. v. 1. 


My pear Frrenp, 

I find Scripture presenting fazih to us in 
more aspects than one. It is sometimes called 
hearing, sometimes knowing, sometimes be- 
lieving, and sometimes recetving, and some- 
times trusting. Strictly speaking, it is sim- 
ply the belief of the truth, yet it is referred 
to throughout Scripture under these different 
names. ‘These may be said to be its different 
stages; and it is useful oftentimes to lay hold 
of it at each of these, and contemplate it un- 
der each of these views. They are not in real- 
ity the same thing, yet they are all 7l/ustra- 
tive of the same thing, and they all point to 
one object. ‘The things which we hear; the 
truth which we know; the tidings which. we 
believe; the gift which we receive ; the being 
whom we trust, may be different in one sense, 
yet in another they are the same. 

13 


146 LETTER VII. 


Some adopt so exclusively one aspect and 
others another, that the object itself is lost 
sight of. Some particular definition is fas- 
tened on and elevated into such prominence 
-as to become little better than a party watch- 
word, furnishing much matter for self-right- 
eousness and self-confidence, no less than for 
the condemnation of others who may chance 
in somewhat to differ. 

I see, for instance, a person glorying in what 
he calls his simple views of faith, and spurn- 
ing every other idea of it but what he calls 
‘the bare belief of the bare truth.” I ask 
such an one, “ where is your child-like confi- 
dence in God, where is the clinging to the 
cross, the resting of the soul upon Jesus HIM- 
sELF as to the resting-place?* You are mak- 


ing a saviour of your faith, an idol of the 


truth. You are just as self-righteous and 
proud in your ‘simple views of faith’ as is the 


* Thus Calvin speaks. After admitting that the general 
object of faith is the truth of God, he thus remarks,—* Faith 
hath no firm footing unless it be placed in the tender mercy 
of God. Why, then, do we dispute about faith? Is it not 
that we may lay bold of the way of salvation? Yet how can 
faith be saying unless in so far as it grafts us into the body 
of Christ? There is nothing therefore of absurdity, if, in de- 
fining it, we thus urge its principal effect; and by way of 
distinction, subjoin its general character, that special mark by 
which it distinguishes the believer from the unbelieyer,”— 
Inst. B. iti. ch. 2, § 30. 


| 
: 
& 
i 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL——ASSURANCE. 147 


mystic whose religion you profess to shun. 
Your God seems to be a mere bundle of ab- 
stract propositions ; your Saviour a mere col- 
lection of evangelical phrases, which you use 
as the mere shibboleth of a sect.” 

Again, I see another individual going into 
the opposite extreme. He overlooks the sim- 
plicity of faith. He undervalues the TRUTH. 
He is wholly occupied with some mystical act- 
ings of his own mind, and trying to exert 
himself to put forth some indescribable efforts 
which he calls receiving and resting on Christ. 
I say to such an one, ‘“ You are on the road 
to mysticism, if you be not already enveloped 
in its mists. You are occupied with your 
own self, with your own actings and feel- 
ings; and you are making a Saviour of these. 
You certainly need more simple views of true 
faith. You need to be recalled from your self- 
righteous perplexities about your own acts, to 
the precious word of truth which you are de- 
spising, as if it contained no comfort for you 
unless you can be conscious of putting forth 
certain acts of your own in connection with 
Atm. 


* No man wished more to avoid giving countenance to the 
idea, that faith is a bare intellectual act, than Mr. Robert Hal- 
dane, yet he does not scruple to use such language as the 
following,—“ A man becomes righteous, perfectly righteous, 


148 ._ LETTER VII. 


From this you will see how it is quite pos- 
sible to admit the full meaning of those words 
in Scripture which speak of confidence, and 
trust, and rest, &c.; while, at the same time, 
we rejoice in those other expressions which rep- 
resent faith as an “acknowledgment of the 
truth,” and the salvation of the sinner as ‘the 
result of his ‘ coming to the knowledge of the 
truth.” It is quite consistent with Scripture 
to represent peace as flowing from confidence 
in God through Christ, and yet as arising 
. from ‘believing the record which God hath 
given of his Son.” 

I shall not, however, attempt a definition of 
faith. ‘This only let me say in a few words, 
that that faith which goes no farther than the 
intellect, can neither save nor sanctify. It 1s 
no faith at all. It is unbelief. No faith is 
saving, but that which links us to the PERSON 
of a living Saviour. Whatever falls short of 
this is not faith in Christ. Hence, while sal- 
vation is described sometimes in Scripture as 


through believing God’s record concerning his Son.”—Haxpo- 
sition of the Romans. Vol. ii. p. 554, Dr. Owen also thus 
writes, “Saving faith is our believing the record that God 
hath given of his Son. . . . Uponour acquiescing in this 
testimony, on our approbation of this way of saving sinners, 
or our refusal of it, our eternal safety or ruin doth absolutely 
depend.”—Hvidences of the Faith of God's Hlect. Works, 
vol. xi, p. 500. 


a i i i —s 


a ‘ 
Pr “tol lS. ne 


FAITH——THE GOSPEL—-ASSURANCE. 149 


a “coming to the knowledge of the truth,” it 
is more commonly represented as a ‘ coming 
to Christ himself.” “ Ye will not come to ms 
that ye might have life.” ‘ Him that cometh 
to me I will in no wise cast out.” 

We often hear the expression, ‘coming to 
the truth” used as a description of conversion. 
Now the Bible word is ‘coming to the knowl- 
edge of the truth.” Even this expression, 
however, is seldom used. The more frequent 
one is ‘coming to Christ; not coming to the 
truth, but coming to the True One. It is 
strange how men should so much prefer the 
phrase “coming to the truth,” to the more 
scriptural and blessed one ‘‘ coming to Christ.” 
It would almost seem as if they disliked the 
idea of a personal Saviour in the matter; or 
as if they had a secret suspicion that while 
their kind of conversion might be called a 
“coming to the truth,” it could not be called 
a ‘coming to Christ” at all. 

But whatever view of faith we take, one 
thing is obvious, that it is from first to last 
“the gift of God.” Make it as simple as you 
please, still it is the result of the Holy Spir- 
it’s direct, immediate, all-quickening power. 
Never attempt, I beseech you, my dear friend, 
to make faith simple, with the view of get- 

13* 


150 LETTER VII. 


ting rid of the need of the Spirit to produce 
it. This, I believe, is one of the wretched de- 
vices of Satan in the present day. By all 
means correct every mistake in regard to 
faith, by which hindrances are thrown in the 
sinner’s way, or darkness thrown around his 
soul. Show him that it is with the object of 
faith, even with Christ and his cross, that he 
has to do, not with his own actings of faith ; 
—that it is not the virtue or merit that is in 
his faith that saves him, but the virtue and 
merit that are in Christ Jesus alone. Tell 
him to look outward not inward for his peace. 
Beat him off from his self-righteous efforts to 
get up a peculiar kind of faith or peculiar acts 
of faith in order to obtain something in him- 
self—something short of Christ, to rest upon. 
Simplify, explain, and illustrate faith to such 
an one, but never imagine that thereby you 
are to make the Spirit’s help less absolutely 
NECESSALY. 

This, I believe, is the aim of the propaga- 
tors of the new theology. ‘Their object in sim- 
plifying faith is to bring it within the reach of 
unrenewed man, so that by performing this 
very simple act, he may become a renewed 
man. In other words, their object is to make 
man the beginner of his own salvation. He 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 1651 


takes the first step, and God does the rest! 
He believes, and then God comes in and saves 
him.* 

This is nothing short of a flat and bold de- 
nial of the Spirit’s work altogether. If at any 
one time more than another the sinner needs 
the Spirit’s power, it is at the beginning. 
And he who denies the need of the Spirit at 
the beginning cannot believe in it at the after 
stages,—nay, cannot believe in the need of 
the Spirit’s work at all. The mightiest and 
most insuperable difficulty lies at the begin- 
ning. If the sinner can get over that without 
the Spirit, he will easily get over all the rest. 
If he does not need the Spirit to enable him 
to believe, he will not need him to enable him 
to love. If when a true object is presented to 
me, I can believe without the Spirit; then 
when a lovable object is presented, I can 
love without the Spirit. In short, what is 


* After speaking of the “convincing and converting effi- 
cacy of EXTERNAL INFLUENCE,” they add the following remark 
concerning sinners to whom these eaternal influences, (afflic- 
tion, disease, judgments, &.,) had been applied—* When 
they have been convicted and disposed to believe him, he 
sends. his word and heals them.”—Correspondence, p. 42. 
“ When the sinner is willing, then the Spirit begins to work,” 
were the words used to myself by a maintainer of the new 
doctrine. It is only then on the willing that the Spirit works! 
Melancholy doctrine! for who are the willing ? Surely some 
better class of sinners than those who inhabit this poor fallen 
earth! 


152 LETTER VII. 


there in the whole Christian life which I can- 
not do of myself, if I can begin this career 
without help from God? The denial of the 
Spirit’s direct agency in faith and conver- 
sion, ts the denial of his whole work in the 
soul both of saint and sinner. 

But is it not said, ‘“ Faith cometh by hear- 
ing?” Certainly it is. And who doubts the 
blessed truth? How can there be faith where 
there is not something to be believed ?* But 
does this mean that hearing alone is necessary 
to the production of faith? The words in the 
original explain this. They are these, ‘“ faith 
arises out of (ef) what we hear, and what we 
hear comes to us through means of (dv) the 
word of God.” Who then would say anything 
but what the apostle does here ?—viz.: that 
the foundation of faith is what we hear,—(lit., 
a hearing or report.) But does this exclude 
the Spirit from his work in preparing the soul 
for believing what it hears ? 

Used in a right sense, I have no objection to 
the expression, so common even in our best 
writers, that it is “‘ the truth which produces 
faith.” And had it not been for the improper 


* “There is an inseparable relation between faith and the 
word, and these can be no more torn asunder from each oth- 
er than rays of light from the sun.”—Calvin’s Institutes, B, 3, 
ch. 2, § 6. 


FAITH——-THE GOSPEL——-ASSURANCE. 153 


use made of it in the present day, no one 
would hesitate to use it. Weare told that 
before the days of Pelagius there were many 
expressions in use, which, after his heresy 
arose, the fathers were afraid toemploy. And 
so we find it here. Calvin, for instance, does 
not hesitate to speak of the word as that ‘“ by 
which faith is concetved.”* And again, “ Faith 
stands in no less need of the word than fruit 
does of the living root of a tree.”i Again, 
Trail in one of his sermons thus speaks, “ It 
is called the word of faith because it is the 
means of faith, and begets faith: what think 
you is faith, but only the impression, the 
stamp, that the word of the Gospel, when 
brought home with power, leaves upon the 
soul: it is the heart’s echo to the voice of 
salvation by Christ in the Gospel.” Again, 
the same author thus speaks; ‘ Believing is 
but thinking, it is no more; but it is a rare 


* Unde fides concipiatur, Inst. B. 3, ch. 2, § 6. 

+ Ibid. B. 3, ch.2, § 31. In like manner Calvin frequently 
speaks of faith, or of the truth, as producing life,—nay, he 
even speaks of our being regenerated by faith; but then on 
the other hand he as distinctly makes the Holy Spirit the 
real fountain of everything like life or regeneration. See for 
instance his commentary on John 1. 12, 13. If you take 
merely one class of extracts, you would say that he gave 
countenance to some of the modern heresies, but if you look 
at others you will see that his meaning is totally opposed te 
these. 

+ Trail’s Works, vol. ii. p. 103. 


154 LETTER VII. 


thing, it is a great thought.”* In like man- 
ner Mr. Haldane makes this remark upon 
Rom. x. 17, ‘“‘ Faith never comes but by hear- 
ing, that is, from the word of God.”t 

I might quote many similar passages from 
the very best of our divines; but I need not.t 
These will show you that while they all held 
faith to be directly “the gift of God,” they 
never hesitated to use such expressions as 
‘faith is begotten by the word.” ‘I'he reason 
is obvious. If men separate faith from the 
word, they immediately fall into mysticism or 
quakerism. ‘They torment and perplex them- 
selves by an attempt to work up some feelings 
of their own, or they sit down and wait for 
the uprising of some inward light, or the com- 
ing down of new revelation. 

And now, having said this much as to faith 
itself, let me add a few words as to that which 
it receives, “‘ the glorious gospel of the blessed 
God.” That which we preach, and that which 
faith believes, “ is the glad tidings of great joy.” 
It is God’s testimony to his own character, his 
declaration of his gracious mind towards the 
sinner, the utterance of his manifold yearnings 


* Trail’s Works, vol. ii. p. 51. 

+ Exposition of Romans, vol. ii. p. 567. 

{ See a very strong one in Alleine’s Alarm to the Uncon- 
verted. Chap. ii. § 3. 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 155 


over his lost and long-wandered offspring. 
That which we make known is the story of 
divine love. We tell men that there is such a 
thing as love in God towards the sinful; that 
this love hath found vent to itself in a righte- 
ous way, and that to the participation and en- 
Joyment of this love anu are welcome. We 
show them how God has opened up his heart, 
to let them see what riches of grace are there; 
and how he has done a work upon the earth 
by which we may measure the infinite dimen- 
sions of that gracious heart. These are the 
NEWs we bring. ‘These are the tidings which 
we present to sinners, to be believed, and to be 
rejoiced in with joy unspeakable and full of 
glory. These tidings are free ; truly, abso- 
lutely, unconditionally free. They are with- 
out money and without price. ‘They make 
known the exceeding riches of the grace of God. 
They show us how these riches are pouring 
themselves freely out upon this fallen world. 
They tell us that not only is there grace in 
God for sinners, but also that that grace has 
found vent to itself, and is flowing down in a 
righteous channel to unrighteous men. They 
tell us that the darkness is past, and the 
true light has risen upon the world. They 
tell us that the veil is rent from top to bot- 


156 LETTER VII. 


tom, and that every sinner may go freely in. 
They tell us that there is forgiving love in the 
bosom of the Father, of which every sinner, 
without exception, is invited to avail himself. 
They point each wandering eye to the cross, 
that it may read there the Divine compassion, 
the yearning tenderness of Him who made us, 


towards the lost, the rebellious, the unholy. . 


They come up to every man, and invite him 
to partake of all the fulness of God: they 
make no exception, but address themselves, in 
all their gladness and amplitude, to each man 
as he stands. ‘* Whosoever will, let him take 
of the water of life freely.” Hear the words 
of Trail: ‘“ Shall we tell men that unless they 
be holy, they must not believe on Jesus Christ; 
that they must not venture on Christ for sal- 
vation till they be qualified and fit to be re- 
ceived and welcomed by him? This were to 
forbear preaching the gospel at all, or to forbid 
all men to come to Christ. For never was 
any sinner qualified for Christ. He is well 
qualified fur us; but a sinner out of Christ 
hath no qualification for Christ but sin and 
misery. . . .. Shall we warn people that 
they should not believe on Christ too soon ? 
It is impossible that they should do it too soon. 
Can a man obey the gospel command too soon; 


———— 


FAITH——THE GOSPEL——ASSURANCE. 157 


or do the great work of God too soon? 

If he should say, what is it to believe on Jesus 
Christ? As to this, I find no such question 
in the word, but that all did some way under- 
stand the notion of it. They all, both Christ’s 
enemies and disciples, knew that faith in him 
was believing that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, 
was the Son of God, the Messiah and Saviour 
of the world, so as to receive and look for sal. 
vation in his name. If he yet ask what he is 
to believe, you tell him that he is not called 
to believe that he is in Christ, that his sins are 
pardoned, and that he is a justified man; but 
that he is to believe God’s record concerning 
Christ ; and that this record is, that God giv- 
eth, (that is, offereth,) to us eternal life in his 
Son, Jesus Christ, and that all who with the 
heart believe this report, and rest their souls 
on these glad tidings, shall be saved. If he 
still say that believing is hard, ask what it is 
he finds makes believing difficult to him? Is 
it unwillingness to be saved? Is it a distrust 
of the truth of the gospel record? This he 
dare not own. Is it a doubt of Christ’s ability 
or good-will to save? This is to contradict the 
testimony of God in the gospel. . . . If 
he say that he cannot believe on Christ, and 
that a divine power is needful to draw it forth, 

‘ 14 


158 LETTER VII. 


which he finds not, you tell him that believing 
in Jesus Christ, is no work, but a resting on Je- 
sus Christ, and that this pretence is as miserable 
as if a man, wearied with his journey, and who 
is not able to go one step farther, should argue, 
I am so tired that I am not able to lie down, 
when, indeed, he can neither stand nor go.”* 

But it may be asked, how is all this freeness 
consistent with Christ’s substitution for his 
church alone? I answer, that the gospel is 
not ‘Christ died for the elect ;” neither is it, 
‘¢Christ died for all.” But it is, ‘Christ died 
for sinners.” It was thus that the apostles 
preached and that men believed. Any reader 
of the Acts of the Apostles may see this. 
They preached the glad tidings in such terms 
as these: “'l'o him give all the prophets wit- 
ness, that through his name, whosoever believ- 
eth in him shall receive remission of sins,” Acts 
x. 43. Or again, ‘‘ Be it known unto you, 
men and brethren, that through this,man is 
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; 
and by him all that believe are justified from 
all things from which ye could not be justified 
by the law of Moses,” xili. 38. 

The passage in 1 Corinthians (xv. 3) is often 


* Select Practical Writings of Trail, issued by the Cheap 
Publication Committee, pp. 153, 161. 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 159 


appealed to as a proof that the apostles preached 
everywhere that Christ died for all. I have 
already remarked, that in the only book in 
which we have a full account of their preach- 
ing (Acts,) there is nothing of this kind stated. 
And, in regard to this passage, I would just 
ask any one, how it is possible to extort such 
a declaration out of it? The apostle went to 
Corinth. He stood up in a city of heathens. 
He cried out, ‘* Christ died for owr sins.” He 
did not say ‘‘for all and every one;” nay, he 
did not say “for your sins;” he simply said 
“for our sins.’ Now I have no wish to re- 
strict the gospel, or to make it appear as if not 
literally and actually free to all. But it is 
plain that the words here are more restric- 
tive than usual. So much so, that had there 
been some cavilling hearer in the way, he 
might have said, like some modern objectors, 
—“Oh! he does not preach the gospel; he 
says, Christ died for owr sins;” he should 
have said, ‘‘ Christ died not for our sins only, 
but for the sins of all.” 

The man who lays the stress of what he 
calls the gospel upon the all, the me, or on the 
other hand, upon the elect or the church, plainly 
does not preach the gospel as the apostles did. 
And the man, who, in believing, is turning 


160 LETTER VII. 


his whole thoughts to these words, is going 
aside from the glad tidings themselves. He is 
thinking of nothing but himse/f, and the bear- 
ing of the gospel upon himself alone. He 
is losing sight of the glorious revelation of 
Himsetr which God has made in the gospel, 
and is only concerned about that part of it 
which he thinks includes his own salvation. 
But how is this, you will ask? For this 
obvious reason, that it is not with the work 
of Christ as a work done specially for myself, 
that I have in the first place to do, in believing, 
but as a work which opens up to me the grace 
of God. It shows me that there is such a 
thing as grace, or free love to sinners, It is 
the pledge of its reality and the measure of 
its extent and dimensions. Whether we sup- 
pose it to be a work done for many or few, still 
it is the declaration of God’s free love, and it 
is that free love that is the sinner’s resting- 
place. The real question that troubles an 
anxious soul is in substance this: “ Is there 
free love in God, free love reaching even to the 
vilest,—free love which no amount of sin can 
either repel or quench? Is there enough of 
that free love to reach even to me and remedy 
a case like mine?” ‘The work of Christ settles 
all these perplexities, and yet in settling them 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 161 


it does not raise the question, ‘* was that work 
done specially for me,” any more than it raises 
the question, “‘am I elected or not?” It is the 
meaning of that work to which an inquirer 
has to look in the first place, not to its ulti- 
mate and particular destination. He who un- 
derstands the character of God as the Lord 
God merciful and gracious, will not be disqui- 
eted by the subtle suggestion of the evil one, 
Am I elected? So he who understands the 
work of Christ, which is the grand exposition 
and opening up of that character, will never 
think of putting the question, Was that work 
specially intended for me? Apart from such 
a question, that work contairfs enough to re- 
move all his fears.* 


* “Tt is a real and important truth, that election and re- 
demption are thus particular and sovereign, not universal 
nor conditional. But remember, though the redemption by 
Christ is not universal in its intention, yet it is so in its pro- 
clamation, which is to be universally believed for salvation: 
John iil. 14-19, Read over these verses, and you may see 
that here are good news, here are glad tidings indeed, pre- 
sented to gain the confidence of poor helpless sinners. This 
free grace requires no previous marks or evidences of our 
own particular election or redemption, in order to afford 
immediate relief to the mind in believing it to be thus open 
and free. It is true God by his word requires us to believe 
the doctrines of particular election and redemption, in order 
to give us a view of the sovereignty of his grace, and to pre- 
vent us from thinking it to be any way conditional, or sus- 
pended upon any actings of ours. But yet it does by no 
means require us to believe our own particular election or 
redemption, in order to our hope God-ward. It presents the 


14% 


162 LETTER VII. 


‘Christ died for atu,” it is said, and this is 
the gospel. Well, granting that it is so, what 
does this mean? Did he by dying infallibly 
secure salvation for all? Oh, no. Did he by 
dying infallibly secure the Holy Spirit for all? 
Oh, no. Did he by dying infallibly secure re- 
generation, and faith, and love, for all? Oh, 
no. Then, I ask, what is meant by his dying for 
all, beyond what John Owen lays down in his 
work on the death of Christ: ‘ Sufficient was 
the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of 
the whole world, and for the expiation of all 
the sins of all and every man in the world ?” 
Or wherein does their gospel present a freer or 
larger aspect to all men than does the follow- 
ing statement of a recent American divine: 

‘The righteousness of Christ therefore, con- 
sisting in the obedience and death demanded 
by the law under which all men are placed, is 
adapted to all men. It is also of infinite value, 
being the righteousness of the eternal Son of 
redemption by Jesus Christ directly before us, as full and 
free; and wheresoever this takes proper effect upon the 
mind, conscience, and conduct, this is the proper and sure 
evidence of our own election. For our election of God is 
known by the gospel coming with power, 1 Thess. i. 4, 5, 
Say not then, Who shall ascend into heaven to see whether 
our names are in the book of life? But look into the gospel, 
»and see whether thy name asa sinner be not there, and whether 


the grace therein revealed, is not free for thee and for any.” 
—Brief Thoughts on the Gospel. 


ee lee er 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 163 


God, and therefore sufficient for all. On these 
two grounds, its adaptation to all, and its sufh- 
ciency for all, rests the offer made in the gospel 
to all. With this, its design has nothing to 
do ; who are to be saved by it we do not know. 
It is of such a nature and value, that whoso- 
ever accepts of it shall be saved. If one of 
the non-elect should believe, (though the hy- 
pothesis is on various accounts unreasonable, ) 
to him that righteousness should be imputed 
for his salvation. And if one. of the elect 
should not believe, or having believed, should 
apostatize, he would certainly perish. ‘These 
suppositions are made simply to show, that 
according to our doctrine, the reason why any 
man perishes, is not that there is no righteous- 
ness provided suitable and adequate to his 
case, or that it is not freely offered to all that 
hear the gospel, but simply because he wilfully 
rejects the proffered salvation. Our doctrine, 
therefore, provides for the universal offer of the 
gospel, and for the righteous condemnation of 
unbelievers, as thoroughly as Dr. Beman’s. It 


opens the door for mercy, as far as legal ob- 


structions are concerned, as fully as his; while 
it meets all the other revealed facts of the case. 
It is not a theory for one fact. It includes them 
all,—the fact that Christ died by covenant for 


164 LETTER VII. 


his own people; that love for his own sheep led 
him to lay down his life; that his death renders 
their salvation absolutely certain; that it opens 
the way for the offer of salvation to all men, 
and shows the justice of the condemnation of 
unbelief. No MAN PERISHES FOR THE WANT OF 
AN ATONEMENT, is the doctrine of the Synod of 
Dort ; it is also our doctrine.”* 

But whilst such is the gospel, you will per- 
haps ask me what I think of the doctrine of 
assurance, aS maintained by the holders of the 
new theology. On this point I have the fol- 
lowing remarks to offer. 

1. The doctrine of assurance is stated and 
pressed by many of them in a most arrogant 
and offensive way; so much so, indeed, that 
the word has become a suspicious one. ‘They 
make a god of their assurance, and condemn 
with the utmost flippancy and ease every one 
who does not come up to their standard of as- 
surance. Just say that you believe, say that 
you are perfectly assured of your salvation— 
join the sect, and this will cover many defects 
which others would not have consented to over- 
look. I have been often both amazed and 
shocked at the vain-glorious boastings of as- 


* Hodge on the Extent of the Atonement. 


FAITH——-THE GOSPEL——-ASSURANCE. 165 


surance, and the contemptuous condemnation 
of others, which are indulged in. Ah! it is 
easy to speak of assurance, to boast of it, to 
despise others for not having it; but it is not 
so easy to “walk humbly with our God.” 
And I have seen such pride, such unmeekness, 
such boasting, such sectarianism, such censo- 
riousness, such evil speaking, in connection 
with this pretended assurance, that I could 
not help coming to the conclusion, that the 
man who could boast of his assurance while 
indulging in such tempers, was deceiving him- 
self or others most grossly, and had no title to 
the name of Christian at all. Iam not pre- 
pared to deny the name of Christian to men, 
simply because they hold much that I con- 
ceive to be error; but I am quite prepared to 
deny such a name to the proud, the censo- 
rious, the uncharitable boasters of their assu- 
rance. 

2. ‘The doctrine of assurance is made wholly 
to rest upon the doctrine that Christ died for 
all, in the most universal sense. It is main- 
tained that there can be no assurance if this 
be not its foundation.* ‘Christ died for me,” 

* Perhaps these asserters of universal redemption might 


learn something from one whom in several respects they 
considerably resemble—Robert Sandeman, He remarks— 


166 LETTER VII. 


is that which every sinner is called upon to 
believe. Yet it is maintained, at the same 
time, that Christ did not die for any, so as 
actually to secure salvation for them, but 
merely to make it possible to them! And to 
believe that Christ died so as to make salva- 
tion possible to me, is all I need to believe in 
order to have assurance ! 

3. The doctrine of assurance sounds very 
strangely in the lips of men who deny the per- 
severance of the saints. No man, it is said, 
can be a Christian who is not assured of his 
salvation, yet a saint may fall from grace. 
Can any thing be more utterly absurd than 
this? In becoming a Christian, I am to be 
quite sure of being saved, yet I am also to 
believe that I may fall away and be lost. 
What is this but telling me that I am to be 
sure of heaven, and yet I am not to be sure 
of it? It is plain, then, that if the doctrine of 
the saints’ perseverance be denied, there can 
be no such thing as assurance. It is an absur- 
dity, an impossibility. The doctrine of assu- 
rance implies that of perseverance, and that of 
perseverance implies that of election. 


“Tf Christ died for them who perish, then the happiness of 
them who are saved must be owing to something else beside 
his death.”—Letters, vol. i. p. 26. 


’ 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 167 


But having made these remarks, I would not 
leave the matter here. While I say these 
things, I am not denying assurance. Far 
from it.* I would maintain it most stren- 
uously as a vital and momentous truth. The 
doctrine of the Reformation, and that which 
Popery hated so mortally, was, “that a man 
is justified through faith alone, and that he 
must know that he is justified.’t And in 
truth, HOW CAN THERE BE OTHERWISE PEACE 
OF CONSCIENCE, OR PEACE wiTH Gop? But 
just in proportion as I would prize and preach 
the true doctrine of ‘assurance of God’s love,” 
and ‘‘peace of conscience,” according to the 
words of our Catechism, in that very propor- 
tion would I condemn and warn you against 
the flippant, boastful assurance of our day. 
‘Peace with God” is the most humbling, sol- 
emnizing, and sanctifying of all truths. And 
when I see no such fruits brought forth by 
those who speak of it so loudly, I would be- 
seech you to be upon your guard, lest the 
peace into which you may thus be led be the 
peace of a seared conscience, or the peace of a 


* Samuel Rutherford says, “Make meikle of assurance, for 
it keepeth your anchor fixed.”— Letters, vol. ii. p. 174. 

+ See that precious little German work, Sanders’ Jehovah 
Zidkenu, p. 20. 


168 LETTER VII. 


hard heart, or the peace of the devil, or the 
peace of the fancy or the flesh. 

As to the doctrine of assurance, I should like 
to have spoken at some length. This, how- 
ever, I cannot do without curtailing other points 
of much moment to which I am hastening on. 
To be as brief as possible, and to give greater 
weight to what I advance, I would quote from 
that admirable work of Mr. Haldane’s, to which 
I have already referred. He thus writes:— 
‘The full assurance of faith in which believers 
are commanded to draw near to God, stands 
inseparably connected with having their hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience. An evil 
conscience accuses a man as guilty, as liable 
to punishment, and keeps him at a distance 
from God, regarding him as an enemy and 
avenger, so that the natural enmity of the 
mind is strengthened. On the contrary, a 
good conscience is a conscience discharged 
from guilt by the blood of Christ. Conscience — 
tells a man that the wages of sin is death, and 
that he is liable to it; but when the atonement 
made by Christ is believed in, it is seen that 
the punishment due for sin, which is death, 
has been inflicted on him, the demands of the — 
law have been fulfilled, and its penalty suf- — 
fered. On this the believer rests, and his con- 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 169 


science is satisfied. It is thus purged from 
dead works; and this is what is called the an- 
swer of a good conscience toward God. (1 Pet. 
li. 21.) This answer of a good conscience 
cannot be separated from assurance of our 
acceptance with him to whom we draw near, 
and the degree in which both this assurance 
and a@ good conscience are enjoyed will be 
equal. 

‘The same is true respecting the grace of 
hope. ‘This, as well as having a good con- 
science, purged from dead works (the duty of 
_ possessing which, no Christian will deny,) stand 

inseparably connected with the personal assur- 
ance of an interest in the Saviour, and all of 
them lie at the foundation of love to God, and 
consequently of acceptable obedience to him. 
_ We love him when we see that he hath loved 
us, and that his Son is the propitiation for our 
sins. How can there be love without a sense 
of reconciliation with God, and how can the 
_ fruits of joy and peace be brought forth, till the 
conscience is discharged from guilt? Love 
proceeds from a pure heart, a pure heart from 
a good conscience, and a good conscience from 
true faith, 

‘Tn the hope of the promised salvation they 
who received the doctrine of the apostles re- 

3) 


170 LETTER VIL. 


joiced as soon as it was announced to them, 
Acts i. 41; viii. 39; xvi. 34. ‘Their joy then 
had not its source in reflecting upon or being 
conscious of their faith, although afterwards so 
confirmed, but arose from the view they had 
of the glory and all-sufliciency of the Saviour 
and his perfect righteousness, made theirs by 
faith, resting on the Divine warrant and prom- 
ise. Although the assurance of sense be con- 
firmatory of the assurance of faith, it is not so 
strong as the latter. ‘ Sanctification,’ says 
Rutherford, ‘does not evidence justification as 
faith does evidence it, with such a sort of clear- 
ness as light evidences colors, though it be no 
sign or evident mark of them; but as smoke 
evidences fire, and as the morning-star in the 
east evidences that the sun will shortly rise, or 


as the streams prove there is a head-spring from ~ 
whence they issue ;—so doth sanctification give — 


evidence of justification only as marks, signs, 
effects, give evidence of the cause. But the 
light of faith, the testimony of the Spirit, will 
cause us, as it were, tosee justification and faith, 
not by report, but as we see the sun’s light.’ 
‘Tf it be objected, that a man cannot know 


that he has faith without seeing its effects, it 
is replied that this is contrary to fact. When — 


a thing is testified, or a promise is made to us, 


. 
oe ee eee ee ee ae eee ee eee —_ 


FAITH—-THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 171 


we know whether or not we believe it, or trust 
init. According to this objection, when Philip 
said, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart 
thou mayest,’ the eunuch should have replied, © 
you ask me to tell you a thing I cannot know; 
but instead of this he answers, ‘I believe.’ 
When the Lord asked the blind man, ‘ Believ- 
est thou in the Son of God? he did not ask a 
question whigh it was impossible to answer. 
‘In this first act of believing,’ says Mr. Bell on 
the Covenants, ‘sinners have no evidence of 
grace in themselves; they feel nothing within 
but sin; they see a word without them as the 
sole foundation of faith; and on that alone they 
build for eternity ; this is a point of no small 
importance to saints and sinners.’ Many of the 
modern builders are at great pains to keep 
their hearers from all confidence, till they first 
discern the evidences of grace in their hearts, 
and having got evidence, then, and not till then 
can they have any just, lawful, or well-ground- 
ed confidence; nay, they seem pretty plainly 
to intimate that a sinner’s right to Christ turns 
on something wrought in him, or done by him, 
and till he have evidence of this he can claim 
no interest in Christ, nor assure himself of sal- 
vation by him. According to this, Christ, the 
tree of life, is forbidden fruit, which the sinner 


172 LETTER VII. 


must not touch till he has seen inward evi- 
dence. I confess that I have not so learned 
Christ. . . . The religion of the church 
of Rome leaves a man nothing but doubts re- 
specting his salvation. It teachesthat a Chris- 
tian should believe in general the promises of 
God, while the application to himself of these 
promises, and the assurance of God’s love, it 
calls presumption. This subjegb was one of 
the grand points of discussion between that 
church and the reformers. But how many 
Protestants have forsaken the ground which 
their predecessors here occupied, and have gone 
over to their opponents? The doctrine of the 
duty of our personal assurance of salvation, 
and the persuasion of our interest in Christ, is 
denied by many, and even doubts concerning 
this are converted into evidence of faith, al- 
though they are directly opposed to it. Doubts 
of a personal interest in Christ are evidences 
either of little faith or of no faith.”* 

Such is the doctrine of assurance, as stated 
by one whose jealousy for every jot and tittle 
of Divine truth gives peculiar weight to all he 
wrote. And with this statement I leave the 
subject. The sentences I have quoted are 
worthy of being pondered. While they give 


* Haldane on the Romans, vol. ii. p. 418-428, 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 173 


no countenance to the boastful assurance of 
the false professor, they equally condemn those 
who either deny that there can be assurance, 
or who place it afar off,—at the end instead of 
the beginning of the believer’s career; who 
discountenance the idea of its immediate pos- 
Session; who actually prefer the doubting to 
the assured Christian; nay, who make doubts 
an evidence of faith, darkness an evidence of 
light! 

There is great danger of making a Saviour 
of our actings, our feelings, or our faith. 
These may steal the heart away from Christ 
as effectually as the works of the self-right- 
~eous. ‘I'he search for these, in which many 
seem to spend their lives, and which makes up 
the religion of not a few, is often Satan’s sub- 
tle device for drawing the eye off from the 
cross of Christ. 

There is oftentimes a far greater prominence 
given to what man has to do in order to be 
saved, than what God has done for his salva- 
tion. It is the latter, not the former, that 
contains the Gospel, for it is the latter that 
opens up the riches of the grace of God. It is 
not the sight of what we do or feel, but the 
sight of what Christ has done and felt, that 
relieves our consciences, removes our burdens, 


174 LETTER VII. 


and fills the soul with assured peace. As 
preachers of the everlasting Gospel, we come 
to tell the sinner not what he has to do, but 
wuat Gop Has pone. It is this that is the 
‘“‘oood news,” the “glad tidings of great joy” 
which are freely preached to atu. ‘I am 
come a light unto the world, that whosoever 
believeth in me should not walk in dark- 
ness.’’* 

And it is a righteous as well as a gracious 
Gospel which we preach. Christ’s death has 
made it a righteous thing in God to send you 
the free message of salvation, a message as 
honest and sincere as it is free. God is ma- 
king proposals to you! He is making them 
in real earnest. -His heart is in unison with 
his words. He desires your return, and stands 
ready to welcome and to bless. His are no 
random words, no feigned invitations, no ex- 
aggerated or delusive promises. He does not 


* We have somewhere read a statement to this effect, 
“that God offers salvation to them that believe, and to them 
alone.” How absurd, as well as how unscriptural! Thus 
Satan drives men from one extreme to the other! As if sal- 
vation were not presented freely to art! As if the invitation 
were not * WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take of the water of 
life freely.” To say that God offers salvation to those that 
believe, is to make our faith the cause or ground of this offer, 
which is, in truth, a worse kind of Arminianism than that 
which is professed to be condemned. God presents salvation 
to all; he gives it to those that believe. The presentation 
is wniversal ; the bestowment is special. 


FAITH—THE GOSPEL—ASSURANCE. 175 


mean to mock or deceive you. ‘* Remember,” 
says Dr. Owen, ‘that the proposal made unto 
you this day cost no less than the price of the 
blood of the Son of God. It is the fruit of 
the travail of his soul. For this he prayed, he 
wept, he suffered, he died. And shall it now 
be neglected or despised by you? Will you 
yet count the blood of the covenant a com- 
mon thing? Will you exclude yourselves 
from all benefit of the purchase of those terms, 
and only leave your souls to answer for the 
contempt of the price whereby they were pur- 
chased.’’* 


I am yours, &c. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“ Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.” 
—Isa. xlv. 22. 

“ Hear, and your souls shall live.”—Isa. lv. 3 

“God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life.’—John iii. 16. 

“He who heareth my*word and believeth on him that sent 
me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna- 
tion, but is passed from death unto life.’—John vy. 24. 

“These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus 
is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might 
have life through his name. John xx. 31. 

“To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that jus- 
tifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”— 
Rom. iv. 5. 


* On the 130th Psalm, p. 633.—Tract. Soc, Hdition. 


176 LETTER VI. 


“Being justified by faith we have peace with God.”— 
Rom. vy. 1. 

“In whom we have boldness and access with confidence 
by the faith of him.”’—Eph. iii. 12. 

“We have known and believed the love that God hath to 
us.”—1 John iv. 16. 

“This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, 
and this life is in his Son.”—1 John y. 11. 


LETTER VIII. 
MAN’S INABILITY. 


“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ?”°— 
Jer. xiii, 23, 


My pear Frienp, 


You ask me what I think of the distinction 
commonly made between moral and physical 
inability. I answer, that to a certain extent 
it is aright one. For clearing off certain dif- 
ficulties and obligations it is excellent; for 
bringing out man’s responsibility, and man’s 
real guilt, it is often most useful. For many 
speak of their helplessness as a mere misfortune 
which has somehow or other befallen them, but 
for which they are not responsible, and which 
infers no guilt on their part.* But it must 
not be carried too far. It must not be abused 
or misunderstood. 

The distinction, we say, is a good one, and 
ought never to be lost sight of. There is, for 


* «They are fearful words, ‘Ye would not? You will 
remember this against another day, as our Saviour says to 
the Jews, ‘ye will not come to me that ye might have life. 
Whatever is pretended, it is will and stubbornness that lie at 
the bottom of the refusal.” —Owen on the 130th Psalm. 


178 LETTER VIII. 


instance, a great difference between my being 
determined not to go to church, and my being 
held from it by force. In the one case I am 
guilty, in the other I am not. The former is 
called mora/, and the latter physical inability. 

But I fear we cannot carry this distinction 
so far as some would have it carried. You 
say, why not? I answer, because if we make 
everything to turn upon this distinction, we 
must maintain, that wherever there is guilt, 
there can be nothing physically wrong with 
the guilty person ; nothing so thoroughly 
wrong with him as to paralyze his moral 
powers, so that their free play in the direction 
of what is good is impeded. Anything like 
physical infirmity or inability of any kind 
would render him irresponsible. 

The question is often asked, ‘ Is moral de- 
pravity possible, if there be any physical (or © 
if you like to call it constitutional or organic) — 
incapacity ?” Now, in answering this, allow 
me to put another which must be previously — 
answered, ‘‘Is moral depravity possible, if 
there be nothing physically wrong with the 
soul?” Tapprehend not. In moral depravity 
the mind or soul is diseased; that is to say, 
some physical change has passed upon them ; 
some change which has acted upon the soul in 


MAN’S INABILITY. 179 


the same way as palsy or fever acts upon the 
body and its organs. Sin has brought on a 
real alteration of their nature. For how can 
a thing be diseased and not in its nature al- 
tered ? Can the tree rot and yet remain un- 
changed? Can the limb be palsied, and yet 
remain physically the same? Can the soul 
be corrupted, and yet be physically unaltered ? 
Impossible! One depraved act might not 
necessarily infer a physical change, but a de- 
praved nature must. ‘The people’s heart is 


~ waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hear- 


ing, and their eyes have they closed.”* 
If then this be true, the distinction alluded 
to will not suffice to carry us through all the 


intricacies of this controversy. If we admit 
_ sin, we must admit a change in the constitu- 


tion of the soul. You may call that change 
a moral one. And no doubt it is. But it is 
also a physical one, that is, a change in our 
very nature, just as really as leprosy is a 
change in the nature of the body. Hence, 
while you may say that the sinner’s inability 
is a moral one, you cannét help admitting that 
there is something more involved init. Nor 
have I any doubt that it was this something 
more that the prophet alluded to, when he 


* Matt. xiii. 14; Acts xxviii. 26. 


180 LETTER VIII. 


said, ‘Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or 
the leopard his spots ;” and that Christ alluded 
to when he said, ‘‘ No man can come to me 
except the Father which hath sent me draw 
him ;’’ or again, ‘‘ No man can come unto me 
except it were given unto him of my Father,” 
John vi. 44, 65. 

Is then this physical change, or deteriora- 
tion, or inability, or by whatever name it is 
called, consistent with responsibility? ‘This 
is the question. Let us examine it calmly, 
and see how it stands. . 

Men are depraved. ‘The heart is deceit- 
ful above all things and desperately wicked.” 
‘The wicked are estranged from the womb ; 
they go astray as soon as they are born, speak- 
ing lies.” ‘ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, 
and in sin did my mother conceive me.”’* 

This depravity is thorough and total. Ev- 


* Finney of America, who holds almost exactly the same 
views as the Pelagians on this side of the Atlantic, ridicules 
the idea of taking this text literally. He maintains that a 
sinful natwre is an absurdity, and that our natures as they 
come into the world, are as good as Adam’s was; see his 
Lectures on Professing Christians, pp. 181 and 301; and his 
imitators in this country de rapidly advancing to the same 
point. Some of them seem to have reached it. An anony- 
mous writer well remarks—‘ It is one of the most refined 
delusions of Satan to make sin appear an accidental thing, 
rather than the corruption of the whole moral constitution. 
Every attempt to make sin consist only in the outward act, 
has led to the nullifying of the atonement, and to the substi- 
tution of morality for Christ’s holiness.” 


MAN’S INABILITY. 181 


ery imagination of the thoughts of his. heart 
is only evil continually. It has deteriorated 
the soul in all its powers. It has not certainly 
taken away any powers or faculties from the 
soul, but it has most materially affected our 
power of using them aright. If you admit 
depravity in any degree, you must admit dete- 
rioration, and consequently less physical power 
for willing and acting right. Does, then, this 
enfeebled capability infer diminished responsi- 
bility and guilt? We have already, so far, 
answered this question. We answer again, 
that it does not, and cannot do so—unless this 
inability has been forced upon us by another 
mightier than ourselves. If it is a voluntary 
inability—voluntary at its commencement, and 
voluntary throughout all its progress, then the 
guilt remains. Whatever name we may give 
to it, still if it be an inability into which the 
heart and will enter—an inability in which 
we acquiesce, nay rejoice, then it is sinful, and 
we are responsible. And this is the answer to 
the objection sometimes adduced, ‘‘ We were 
born in this state; it was the fall that did 
this.” Allowing it to be so, and granting 
what extenuation you please on this account— 
still is it not a fact that you are of your own 
will an enemy to God? Is it not a fact, 
16 


182 LETTER VIU. 


there is nothing compelling you to hate God ? 
Is it not a fact, that every step you take is 
voluntary, and that every feeling you cherish 
towards God is entirely unconstrained and 
unforced from without? If so, then there is 
still an awful mass of guilt for which you are 
accountable, even though you could prove that 
the origin of it may be urged as an extenua- 
tion or excuse. Whatever the fall did, it 
never forced you to commit a single sin. 
Whatever may be your original corruption, 
you cannot say that it ever compelled you to 
sin against your will. And is it not folly as 
well as profanity for a sinner to be casting the 
blame of the evil that he does upon some for- 


eign cause, when he is all the while conscious — 


that he is doing it of hisown will. It is vain, 
and worse than vain, to attempt to unfasten 
our guilt from ourselves, and fix it on our 
birth, or our education, or our circumstances. 


These may account for our sin, but they can- — 


not annul it. ‘They may in part explain our 


conduct, but they cannot prove our innocence ~ 


or secure our acquittal. 

The question does not turn solely upon the 
kind or amount of inability, but upon this— 
is it or is it not inability produced or perpetua- 
ted by our own deliberate choice? Did not 


~,4 


MAN’S INABILITY. 183 


God give you ability, and you threw it away? 
You could not, indeed, throw away the pow- 
ers themselves, love, judgment, memory, and 
such like ; but you did what was far worse— 
you disabled and besotted them, so as to make 
them only capable of acting wrong. You 
changed the physical organization of these 
powers from good to evil; and will you, after 
all this, venture to say, that you are not re- 
sponsible for the change? You have done the 


evil, and you cannot undo it. But we are re- 
sponsible for many things which we cannot 


undo. If we wilfully do them we are guilty. 
If a pilot undertakes to steer your vessel 
into port, and then deliberately besots himself 
so that he cannot; is he not responsible? 
Rather, is he not doubly responsible, doubly 
guilty; guilty for not doing the thing con- 
tracted for, and guilty for rendering himself 
unable to do it? Is not the fact that he 


himself has rendered the doing of what he un- 
- dertook a physical impossibility, an aggravation 
of his guilt? If a stronger than he were to 


imprison him, and prevent his executing his 
trust, that would be a very different case. He 
would not then be guilty. In that case he 
could in no sense help it. His inability was 
not his own doing at all. His not doing the 


184 LETTER VIII. 


thing which he undertook, arose neither from” 


his unwillingness, nor from his refusal to exer- 
cise the powers given him, nor from his hav- 
ing perverted them or thrown them away. 
None of these being true, he is not guilty. 
But if any of them should be true, he would 
be guilty, even if he should plead physical in- 
ability. If he wilfully wasted or destroyed 


his powers, he would be responsible for the. 


complete exercise of them still. 

On any other supposition, there would be 
no such thing as right and wrong, nor any such 
thing as responsibility at all. If a man is not 
responsible for that which he is now unable 
to do, when he himself is the real cause of the 
inability, then nothing can be more easy than 
to evade responsibility altogether. If I have 
a disagreeable duty to perform, I have only to 
induce disease, or maim my limbs, and then I 
am no longer responsible for the neglect! IfI 
have to pay a debt of a hundred pounds, I 
have only to throw away the money or mis- 


spend it, and then I am no longer responsible. 


for it! Nay, I may contract debts to any 
amount, and no man can make me responsible 
for them, if I can only prove myself unable to 
pay them. This was exactly Jonah’s way of 
avoiding the danger and pain of carrying God’s 


MAN’S INABILITY. 185 


message to Nineveh. He fled away so as to 
make it physically impossible for him to go to 
Nineveh, as if the Lord would be mocked with 
such an excuse! If the simple fact of a per- 
son’s being unable to perform a thing excuse 
him for the neglect of it, then moral obliga- 
tion must be very loose and uncertain, and the 
law of God a thing easily dispensed with or 
trifled away. 

The real question is not simply, Am I un- 


able? but, How did this inability come to 


pass? Have I destroyed and disabled myself, 
or did God do it? It is in vain to plead inabil- 
ity, so long as it is true that I produced it my- 
self, in direct opposition to the will of him that 


_ made me; and so Jong as I am daily perpetu- 


ating and strengthening it, willingly and delib- 
erately. We may in many cases measure a 
man’s guilt by reference to his present resour- 


_ ces and capacities ; but God measures it by 


reference to the original powers conferred upon 
him, and which he has deliberately thrown 
away. ‘lo measure it by any other standard 
would be to give man the entire power to fix 
the amount of his own guilt, and estimate its 
penalty. 

It is vain to say, Oh yes, man is responsible 
for the act of throwing away his powers, but 

Tea 


186 LETTER VIII. 


not for everything that has happened to him, 
or been done by him, in consequence of these’ 
being disabled. J answer, if a man is respon- 
sible for the first act, then he is so for all the 
others; for what are the others but a repetition 
of the first? And even though they were not, 
yet in every act the measure of responsibility 
must be the power which God gave him to 
perform the act aright. You may say, per-' 
haps, Yes, man is responsible for everything 
into which his will enters; but not beyond 
the degree of will involved, or the degree of 
power possessed. Now, I admit that more or 
less of will must be involved in what a man 
does.* Even what are called involuntary 
movements, both of body and soul, have per- 
haps more of the will in them than we sus- 
pect, however unconsciously brought into play. 
Hence in things which seem the mere result 
of physical constitution, there may be a far 
greater amount of will than we imagine. So 
that to determine the amount of wil/ in any- 
thing is a matter of exceeding difhieulty. In 
any particular sin it is impossible for us to say 
how much may be the result of will, and how 

* “There is no command given unto men for evangelical 
faith or obedience ; but they can and do put forth a free posi- 


tive act of their wills in the rejection of it.’—Owen’s Works, 
vol. ii. p. 337. 


MAN’S INABILITY. 187 


much of power. How vain then to say, we 
must ascertain how much will and how much 
power are involved in an action, before we de- 
termine the amount of guilt. 

I do not maintain that the Holy Spirit cre- 
ates new faculties or powers inus. No. He 
renews all our faculties, but he creates no new 
ones. faith is not a new faculty, neither is 
love, neither is trust. What is faith, but the 
soul believing ; what is love, but the soul lov- 
ing; what is trust, but the soul trusting ? 
The work of the Spirit is to renew the soul, 
not to annihilate it; and being renewed, it 
believes, and loves, and trusts, when that which 
is true, and lovable, and trustworthy is pre- 
sented to it. In its unrenewed state it rejects 
all that is true and lovable and trustworthy 
in God. Not till the Holy Spirit’s renewing 
hand is laid on it will it receive these. But 
in all this there is no creating new faculties in 
the soul; there is simply the ‘‘renewing us in 
the spirit of our minds.” 

I am willing to admit that we have all the 
powers that man ever had. Weneed no more. 
We require no new powers to be created in us. 
But then the right action of our powers—their 
action in the direction of what is good, is to- 


tally suspended, palsied, prostrate. ‘The power 


188 LETTER VIII. 


of using these powers aright is gone.* These 
powers we still possess, the power we have cast 
away. I have all the bodily limbs that Adam 
had ; but the power to use them is not like his. 
I have all the mental and moral powers which 
he possessed, but the power to use them I have 
sinned away. Now, it is the possession of the 
powers that makes me responsible, not simply 
the possession of the power. If I came into 
the world bereft of intellect, then I could not | 
be expected to understand truth, nor com- 
manded to believe it. But if my understand- 
ing remain, however paralyzed a aro 
by sin, Iam responsible. If I came into the 
world without a conscience, I could not be 
commanded to keep the holy law of God; but 
if I have a conscience, however depraved by 
sin, | am responsible for keeping it. If I came 
into the world without a heart to love, any 
more than the worm beneath my feet, I could 
not be enjoined to love. But if I have a heart 
still, however changed in regard to its tastes, 
then I am responsible up to the extent of my 
original powers of loving. If I came into the 
world without a will, like a stone, I could not 


* Yet we say with Owen, “It is granted that there is in 
man a natural remote passive power to give obedience unte 
God.”— Works, vol. ii. p. 885. 


MAN’S INABILITY. 189 


be guilty ; but if I have a will, though utterly 
set against God, utterly in bondage to sin, then 
I am responsible up to the full measure of that 
for which that will was at first given. 

Man is truly a far more depraved being than 
many seem to suppose. The seat of his dis- 
ease lies far deeper than they imagine. They 
would make it a very superficial thing, easily 
cured, by a mere act of his own will. God 
makes it very different,—deep-scated, awfully 
malignant, utterly incurable, save by the di- 
rect forthputting of the will and power of God.* 

that the seat of the disease is the 
will, still the case remains unaltered. ‘The 
will must have undergone a change, so that 
it is not now what once it was. The will 
has become depraved, and that depravity can 
only be removed by the mighty power of God. 
Let the seat of the malady be where you like, 
still it is a malady of such a nature as to re- 


* I am surprised that any one should maintain that the 
physical organization of our souls does not suffer, and is not 
deteriorated by our fall. Look at the savage, and see how 
his mental and moral capacities have suffered. They have 
shrunk and withered up like a limb that is cramped or out 
of use. Look at the uneducated man, it is the same with 
him. Look at the drunkard, it is the same with him. Their 
whole soul is deteriorated, and physically injured. They are 
not capable of comprehending or relishing truth, to which in 
other circumstances they would have been perfectly adequate. 
I say nothing as to the means to be employed for rectifying 
this disease and incapacity: I simply advert to the fact. 


190 LETTER VIII. 


quire the interposition of Omnipotence for its 
cure. 

The question then comes to be, not what is 
the disease, or what is the seat of it, but is it 
capable of removal by any but God? Grant 
that there is no inability but what is entirely 
moral, not physical at all, still the question re- 
curs, is the removal of that moral inability 
more within man’s power than the removal of 
the physical? If both are equally beyond his 
power, though in a different way, then really 
the stress laid upon the distinction between 
moral and physical inability, though right in 
itself perhaps, is still far away from the real 
point before us. My determination not to ens 
ter a church is a very different thing from my 
being positively unable to do so; yet practi- 
cally they come to the same point. And the 
real question is, whichever of the two it be, 
How is it to be removed? ‘That which con- 
cerns me most is not so much the precise seat 
of the disease, as the amount of power required 
to cure it. And whether we count our inabil- 
ity a moral or physical one, there can be no 
doubt that it can only be rernoved by God. 

I press this point for the following reason: 
As long as the distinction between moral and 
physical inability was brought out for the pur- 


MAN’S INABILITY. 191 


pose of enforcing the sinner’s responsibility, 
there could be no harm in it. Nay, it was 
right. But when it is brought out in order to 
prove to the sinner that his disease is of such 
a kind, that he can remove it all by an act of 
his own will, then we are called upon to guard 
against the conclusions drawn from the dis- 
tinction, and to clear up the distinction itself. 
I have no doubt that the reason of its being so 
much dwelt upon by some, is in order to show 
the sinner that he has the power to heal the 
disease, or at least to commence the healing 
process, without the direct interposition of 
God. 

Make then the inability small or great, 
make it natural or moral, make it of what- 
ever kind you will, still this fact comes prom- 
inently out, that man cannot remove it. God 
alone can do this. Man is utterly helpless. 
God must interpose ; and in whatever way he 
interposes, there is a testimony of man’s help- 
lessness. If God must interpose, either di- 
rectly or indirectly, then up to the amount of 
power put forth in that interposition, I am 
counted by him as helpless. With this ques- 
tion the mode of operation has nothing to do. 
At another stage of the question this point will 
be discussed ; but here we speak, not of the 


192 LETTER VIII. 


necessity for a particular kind of operation, 
but for any operation at all, mediate or iIm- 
mediate. Without the Spirit working in some 
way or other, it is admitted by all, that man 
would remain an unbeliever. Is he not then 
responsible for this unbelief—an unbelief which 
it requires the Spirit to remove? If it 1s con- 
fessed that he is responsible in such cireum- 
stances, then I answer, the whole question is 
conceded; for it is granted that he is respon- 
sible for that which without the Spirit never 
will be done by him. 

A favorite argument with many is, ‘‘ How 
can a man be called on to believe if he is not 
able of himself to do so? and how can the gos- 
pel be free if man be unable of himself to re- 
ceive it?” On this I would make the follow- 
ing remarks :— 

1. This is a wrong way of settling the mat- 
ter. The true question is as to what Scrip- 
ture says, and not as to what we think. Now, 
Scripture does call upon us, and command us 
to believe, yet declares also our entire helpless- 
ness. Both of these things are true, whether 
we can reconcile them or not. The truth of 
either of them does not depend upon our being 
able to adjust and explain them, but simply 
upon Goud’s declaration concerning them. He 


MAN’S INABILITY. 193 


has revealed both, and it is not for us to ask 
how can both of these be true, or to refuse to 
admit one of them, because it appears to our 
reason inconsistent with the other. We know 
so little of the things of God, and are so 
utterly unable to reconcile many things much 
plainer than these, that it becomes us to be 
silent. God commands men everywhere to 
believe and repent, yet he says, ‘‘no man can 
come to Christ unless it be given him of the 
Father.” Let us receive both of these state- 
ments, for both are of God. It is sad, indeed, 
when men will not believe what God tells 
them, unless their own reason can approve of 
it. There can be little reverence for God 
when men will not receive his revelation un- 
less borne out by the demonstrations of their 
own erring reason. ‘There can be little rever- 
ence for the Bible when men will not admit 
one of its plainest statements, because they 
cannot see how it accords with another to 
which they happen to be particularly attach- 
ed. There may be perfect harmony, though 
we do not see it.* 

* “The word goes on in its way, not obviating every pos- 
sible mi-conception, not giving anxious pains to show how 
this statement which it makes and that agree. It is satis- 


fied that they do agree, and lets those that are watching for 
an offence take it... It is ever the manner of that word, 


17 


194 LETTER VIII. 


How foolish, then, and unreasonable to dwell 
upon such apparent contradictions, as if these 
could settle the question. Christ’ commanded 
Lazarus to come forth. Did that prove that 
Lazarus could do it of himself? How profane, 
as well as foolish, would it be to say, Lazarus 
could not be entirely dead; he must have had 
some life and power remaining, else Christ 
would never have commanded him to come 
forth. 

But, some one will say, there is a mighty 
difference between this instance and the mat- 
ter before us. I grant there is; but the dif- 
ference is all against such an objector. It 
does not matter what you call the kind of 
death or the kind of inability, it may be moral 
or it may be physical, still it 7s death, and it 
és inability. It is such a death and such an 


now boldly to declare its truth upon this side, and then 
presently to declare it as boldly and fearlessly on the other, 
not painfully and nicely balancing, limiting, qualifying, till 
the whole strength of its statements had evaporated, not 
caring though its truths should seem to jostle one another. 
Enough that they do not do so indeed. It is content to leave 
them to the Spirit to adjust and reconcile, and to show how 
the rights of each are compatible with the rights of the other, 
and not compatible only, but how most often the one requires 
that the other have its rights before it can truly have its own. 
. .. It is this glory of Scripture that its harmonies lie deep; 
so deep that to the careless or perverse ear they may 
sometimes taken for discords.”—Zrench’s Hulsean Lecture 
pp. 118-120. get 


MAN’S INABILITY. 195 


inability as requires to be removed by the 
power of another. 

And this is enough. Even where the power 
of another must go forth in order to enable the 
person to comply with the command, the com- 
mand is quite consistent with man’s responsi- 
bility. It is needless then to discuss the ques. 
tion of moral and physical inability. All J] 
contend for here is an tnability which the 
power of another ts required to remove. In 
consistency our adversaries ought to maintain 
that wherever the inability is of such a kind 
as to require the aid of another, then moral 
obligation ceases. In this point of view it does 
not matter what the inability be, or where it 
lies. If it be so great, or of such a nature as 
to require the forthputting of the Spirit’s power 
for its removal, then, according to the new 
theology, the sinner is not responsible, and God 
is unjust in commanding or inviting. We say, 
if the sinner produced the inability he is re- 
sponsible. Tey say, no; he is not responsi- 
ble, unless he is able to remove it himself. 
So that it would just come to this;—if you 
say that the Spirit’s help is absolutely neces- 
sary in conversion, and that the sinner cannot 
convert himself, you make him no longer a re- 
sponsible agent,—no longer a person to whom 


196 LETTER VII. 


commands or invitations can be honestly or 
consistently addressed. 

It is remarkable, also, that it is from reswr- 
rection that many of the expressions are taken 
regarding the power required to convert the 
soul. “You hath he quickened who were 
dead in trespasses and sins.” ‘What is the 
exceeding greatness of his power to usward 
who believe, according to the working of his 
mighty power which he wrought in Christ 
when he raised him from the dead.” It is 
then the exceeding greatness of his power that 
is required to raise us. It is the same migh- 
ty power which raised Christ—nothing less 
thanthis. It is more than creation-power. It 
is resurrection-power. 

2. Upon any theory regarding the Spirit’s 
work the same difficulty occurs, and the same 
question may be put regarding man’s respon- 
sibility for believing the gospel. If I entirely 
deny both the being and the work of the Spirit, 
I can consistently put the question, how can 
you ask a man to believe, and yet say that he 
needs the Spirit in order to this? But if I 
admit that the Spirit’s aid is necessary in any 
sense, then I admit that but for that help the 
sinner would not or could not have believed. 
And what is this but confessing the great 


MAN’S INABILITY. 197 


truth, that man is in himself helpless, but still 
responsible—that man cannot, or at least will 
not, believe without the Spirit—yet still that 
he may be called upon to do so, and condemn- 
ed for not believing? Let me grant that the 
Spirit does not operate directly, let me admit 
this to the fullest extent ;—still it remains 
true that his indirect operation is absolutely 
necessary, and that without it the sinner’s 
unbelief would remain immovable. If then 
there is an admission of the necessity of the 
Spirit’s agency in any degree or mode, then 
there is a confession that man in himself is 
helpless, and yet responsible. You must either 
deny the Spirit and his work totally, or else 
admit the sinner’s responsibility even in the 
midst of his helplessness. 

3. Let me grant that the inability is wholly 
in the wz// and nowhere else: that the sinner 
can, if he wi/l, do everything in believing, 
&c. Does this get clear of the difficulty ? 
By no means. For still the w7/l being wholly 
set against God presents the grand obstacle. 
God sees that man never wll turn of his own 
accord, and yet he invites, entreats, and com- 
mands him to do so. Is not this as great a 
difficulty as ever? Allowing that it places 
the question of the sinner’s responsibility in a 

1 Se 


198 LETTER VIII. 


truer light, does it throw any light upon God’s 
reasons for entreating sinners to do what he 
knows they never will? I might still ask the 
question, and insist upon a solution of the dif- 
ficulty, “Why does God call on us to turn, 
when he knows we never will do so until he 
turns us? Is it not mockery in God to plead 
with us, and ply us with arguments and mo- 
tives, when he knows quite well that we never 
will comply with these of our own accord? 
Here is the great difficulty,—a difficulty which 
exists in our opponents’ system as well as ours, 
—a difficulty which, even upon their principles, 
would lead to the conclusion that God is insin- 
cere in what he says,—giving us invitations 
which he knows will never be complied with. 
4, Let me again grant that the inability is 
entirely moral, entirely in the will, how does 
this clear up matters? Moral inability I 
should imagine to be something much worse 
than physical inability,—something much more 
difficult to remove. And if so, I may well ask, 
How is moral inability consistent with the 
commands of God in the gospel? It may be 
a different thing from the other kind of inabil- 
ity; it may preserve man’s responsibility, but 
how does it in the very least furnish an answer 
to the question before us? If then the moral 


MAN’S INABILITY. 199 


be worse than the physical inability, any pros- 
pect of the sinner’s believing, turning, &c. of 
his own accord, and unacted upon by another, 
is wholly at anend. The impossibility, or at 
least the unlikelihood, cf such a thing, is in- 
creased, not diminished. And how is that 
moral impossibility or unlikelihood to be over- 
come? Only by God. If so, why does God 
call on the sinner to do that which is morally, 
though not physically, impossible ? 

5. God commands the sinner to keep the 
whole law, in every jot and tittle. The com- 
mand is a just one. Man is responsible for. 
obeying it. But does this prove that unre- 
newed man is able to keep the whole law? A 
man’s being unrenewed does not free him from 
his obligation to keep the law. He is still 
bound to do so even in his unrenewed state. 
But does this prove that in that state he is also 
able to keep it? According to some, it does; 
otherwise God would not be just in enjoining 
him to keep it. But further, a man has the 
same power to keep the law as he has to be- 
lieve the gospel. His powers for both are of 
necessity the same, unless a new faculty be re- 
quired in order to his keeping the law. If, 
then, he can believe of himself, he can keep 


200 LETTER VIII. 


the law of himself. He is equally responsible 
for both. 

6. God commands us to “ make ourselves 
new hearts,” Ezek. xviii. 31. Are we able to 
do this? Not even the advocates of free-will 
maintain this.* They admit that a man can- 
not convert himself, and give himself a new 
heart. Yet God commands us to do this, and 
tells that if we do not do this, iniquity will be 
our ruin. We are responsible for making our 
hearts good, for we made them evil. It is no 
excuse to say, we have made them so evil that 
we cannot renew them: it is beyond our power. 
We are responsible for all the evil that we have 
done, whether we can undo it or not ; and God 
is righteous in saying to us, Do this good, or 
undo this evil. 

These considerations may help to show us 
that man’s utter helplessness is not at all in- 
consistent with God’s authority over him, and 
that it is quite possible to hold the doctrine of 
man’s inability, and yet to press upon him the 
command, ‘‘ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ;” 
nay, to say, ‘‘ Ye will not come unto me, that 


* Finney of America does maintain this; and thus far he 
is self-consistent. But few are so bold. The harmony of 
their system requires and implies it; but they shrink from a 
harmony involving such consequences, at least they have 
done so as yet. 


MAN’S INABILITY. 201 


ye might have life;” ‘As I live, saith the 
Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the 
sinner, but rather that he turn from his way 
and live; turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye 
die ;” “ whosoever wi// let him take of the 
water of life freely.” 

It is not surely very difficult to see the con- 
sistency between man’s helplessness and his 
responsibility to obey the calls to believe, to 
turn, to repent. [or these calls are not to 
anything save what the sinner feels he is bound 
to do, whether he be assisted or not in the do- 
ing of them. ‘Those feelings which the Holy 
Spirit works, are jusi what every man ought 
at all times to have, and which he is guilty 
for not having. If that which He wrought 
was something alien to our being, something 
so entirely new, that we could form no concep- 
tion of it, then the inconsistency would exist. 
But since he only does for us, and in us, that 
which we ought always to possess, and for 
which we are responsible, the consistency is 
plain and indisputable. 

As to the freedom of the will, I must be con- 
tent with a few remarks. Philosophers and 
Pelagians say that man’s will is free; Scrip- 
ture says that it is in bondage. I admit that 
God does not force it, that the devil cannot 


202 LETTER VIII. 


force, that nothing outward can force it. I ad- 
mit that man is a free agent in what he does, 
in so far as anything outward is concerned. 
But still his will is a captive. Christ says, 
‘¢ Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of 
sin ;” and he adds, ‘‘ If the Son make you free, 
ye shall be free indeed.” Does this not mean, 
that till Christ make us free, we are not free? 
Paul also speaks of our being the ‘“ servants of 
sin,’—of our being “carnal, sold under sin;” 
and Peter says, ‘‘ They promise them liberty, 
while they themselves are the servants of cor- 
ruption ; for of whom a man is overcome, of 
the same he is brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 
ii. 19.) Let these passages suffice for those 
who boast of the freedom of the will. But, in- 
deed, if they have not learned, in their own 
bitter experience, the miserable bondage of 
their own will, and the sad dominion which 
sin has over them, I despair of convincing 
them either by reason or Scripture.* 


* How like men speak now-a-days to the carnal Jews of 
old, when Christ told them that they were not free: “ We 
be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: 
how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free ?”—John Viii. 33. 
Thomas Adam, in his Private Thoughts, has the following 
remark :—* It is the general opinion of mankind, and what 
the fathers (Chrysostom and others), flourish much on with 
great confidence, that the will is free. I do not findit so. The 
captivity of the will is my misery and great complaint before 
God; nor do J think that if it were in equilibrio, any man 
on earth would choose evil.” 


MAN’S INABILITY. 203 


But you, my dear friend, know something of 
the struggles of a soul in bondage. [ven when 
rejoicing in forgiveness, and walking in the lib- 
erty which the Son hath given, we are contin- 
ually made to feel the remains of our former 
bondage, and to cry out because of it. Our 
chains no longer bind us, but their fragments 
still remain upon our limbs. And if even now 
we feel the traces of our bondage, how heavy 
and sore must it have been in other days! 
Our wills, our faculties, our whole nature, 
were in bondage. We were not free till Christ 
made us so. And it isin this that we rejoice; 
we once were the slaves of sin, now we are set 
free; once it had dominion over us, now we 
are delivered from its yoke! And instead of 
being less free, because filled and moved by 
the indwelling Spirit, we are all the more free. 
It is his omnipotent interposition that gives us 
liberty. We were helpless bond-slaves before. 
Blessed be the name of him who sent from 
above, and took us and drew us out of many 
waters! Blessed be his glorious name forever, 
who hath opened our prison-gates, and brought 
us forth out of the low dungeon to breathe in 
gladness the fresh air of a heavenly day !*—I 
am yours, &e. 


* Those who say that the whole disease lies in the wid/, 


204 LETTER VIII. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the 
earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was 
only evil continually.’—Gen. vi. 5. 

“The Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and 
eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.”—Deut. xxix. 4, 

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not 
one.” —Job xiv. 4. 

“ Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my 
mother conceive me.”—Ps. li. 5. 

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately 
wicked.”—Jerem. xvii. 9. 

“Neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and 
he to whomsoever the Son willeth (purposeth) to reveal 
him.”—Matt. xi. 27. The word here is Povdoua, 1 purpose, 
not merely Ged», I will. 

“Their heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of 
hearing, and their eyes have they closed.’—Matt. xiii. 15. 

“ Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”—John 1 18. 

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit.’—John iii. 6. 

“No man can come to me except the Father, which hath 
sent me, draw him.’—John vi. 44. 

“No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him 
of my Father.”—John vi. 65. 

“ J am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow 
not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that 
dol . . . Towill is present with me; but how to per- 
form that which is good, I find not. . . . The good that 
I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. 
AES I see another law in my members warring against 
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the 
law of sin.”—Rom. vi. 14-18, 19-238. 

“The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against 
the flesh, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.””— 
Gal. v. 17. 


and nowhere else, must have some difficulty in sympathizing 
with Paul, when he said, “ 7o witu is present with me, but 
HOW TO PERFORM that which is good I find not.” I would 
earnestly recommend the careful study of the seventh chapter 
of the Romans in connection with this letter. 


MAN’S INABILITY. 205 


“You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and 
sins.”—Eph, ii. 1. 

“ Who being past feeling, have given themselves over to 
lasciviousness. —Eph. iv. 19. 

“ Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from 
sin.”——2 Pet. ii. 14, 


NOTE. 


The following paragraphs may help the reader to under- 
stand how man may be a free agent, and yet in bondage to 
sin. “Has not man liberty in respect of the law, as well as 
of the Gospel? Does he, in any instance, break the law 
against his will? Surely not. Ifa bias of mind to evil tends 
to destroy free agency, then the devil can be no free agent, 
and so is not accountable. The same holds true of a bias to 
good ; neither God, nor Christ, nor saints in glory, are capa- 
ble of doing wrong. The bias of their minds is so invariably 
fixed to holiness, that it is impossible they should in any in- 
stance deviate from it, and yet will any one deny them to be 
the subjects of free agency ?”—Fudller. 

“Sinners are free and voluntary in their bad temper. Did 
anybody force them to be of such a bad temper? Surely no. 
Their hearts and Wills were in it. . . . The stronger any 
inclination is, the more full and free the heart and soul is in 
the thing. Hence the habitual bad inclination of the devil 
is at the farthest distance from any compulsion. He is most 
perfectly free and hearty in it. . . If, then, we are so 
averse to God that we cannot love him; and if our bad dis- 
position is so strong, so settled, so rooted, that we cannot get 
rid of it; this is so far from being matter of excuse for us, 
that it renders us so much the more vile, guilty, and heil- 
deserving. To suppose that our inability in this case exten- 
uates our fault—an inability which increases in preportion to 
our badness, is to suppose that the worse a sinner grows the 
less to blame he is.”—Bellamy’s True Religion Delineated. 


18 


LETTER IX. 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 


“Then opened he their understanding that they might understand 
the Scriptures.”—LuKE xxiv, 49. 

“When He the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all 
truth.’—Joun xvi. 13. 


My pear FRrRienp, 


You hear it often said by the holders of the 
new theology,—‘‘ we do not deny the Spirit’s 
work, but we maintain that he works only 
through the word, nay, that he is 7m the word, 
so that whenever the word is read or preached, 
there is the Spirit.” Let us examine this 
statement. 

1. If the Spirit is the word, how is it that 
we are never told so in Scripture? ‘There is 
not one passage in which this is stated, or even 
hinted at. ‘The language used throughout the 
whole Bible is such as continually to impress 
upon us the idea of his direct, personal, and 
special agency. It is to Scripture that I ap- 
peal; let our opponents produce their proofs 
from the word of God. Mere human infer- 
ences are not enough. It is vain to say, it 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 207 


must be so. It is worse than vain to rest upon 
the reasonings of man. Jn a matter like this, 
it is to God alone that we can listen. He 
always speaks of his work in the new creation 
as being equally direct and special with his 
work in the old. If there be nothing but in- 
direct agency in the former, then we must 
maintain that there was the same in the lat- 
ter, which is precisely the conclusion at which 
modern infidelity has arrived. 

2. If the Spirit is in the word, how is he 
said to be in the hand of Christ, and at his dis- 
posal? If he is in the word, then he is out of 
the hands of Christ, and it will not be true 
that he gives eternal life to as many as the 
Father hath given him; it will not be true 
that ‘‘the Son quickeneth whom he will.” 
The Spirit will then be at our disposal, and 
wherever we choose to send the Bible or the 
gospel, thither we send the Spirit. Christ is 
not at liberty to * quicken whom he will,” for 
the Spirit is to be dispensed according to our 
pleasure! If he is so in the word, then wher- 
ever the word is, there is the Spirit in all his 
energy and power. How is this consistent 
with his being given to Christ, in order that 
He may pour him out according to his will? 

3. If He is in the word, it is unnecessary to 


‘208 LETTER IX. 


pray that he may be given to us. All that we 
ought to do is to give thanks to God for having 
given him: but no man, whether saint or sin- 
ner, should pray for the Spirit at all. I should 
never think of praying to God for a Bible, if I 
already possessed one: and how can I pray for 
the Spirit if he be already given me in the 
word? Nor can I ask God to give his Spirit 
to any friend, either converted or unconverted, 
for if he has his Bible, he has all of the Spirit 
that he ever can have. What good would my 
praying for him do? And hence some we 
know are strictly carrying out their principles, 
and refusing to pray for the conversion of their 
friends or children. 'They feel that to pray for 
their conversion is to ask God to do something 
directly, for their souls, which their theory for- 
bids them to do. 

4, If He is in the word, it is needless to 
pray that He would teach us to understand 
that word. If God has already put all of the 
Spirit into the word that he means us to have, 
it is sinful in us to ask, and foolish to expect 
more. Yet has not God put into our lips more 
than a thousand prayers for the understanding 
of his holy word? When, therefore, we pray 
to be instructed therein, we ask God to do 
something for us inwardly, in addition to what 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WoRD. 209 


he has already done for us outwardly, to the 
end that we may learn his truth. We may 
have read the word times beyond number, but 
still we know that when God touches the 
springs of the soul, renewing it and imparting 
relish for the truth in place of our natural dis- 
relish, every word seems full of new sweetness 
and beauty. Outwardly it is the same word; 
but the inward touch of the divine finger upon 
the soul operates with such wondrous efficacy, 
that all seems fresh and new. This is utterly 
inconceivable upon a scheme which admits of 
nothing but mere outward influence. If the 
same verse of the Bible appear sweeter at one 
time than another, the cause of this difference 
must be a change in the state of the soul. If 
the soul remains unchanged, the verse will ap- 
pear the same. But if the soul undergo any 
alteration, the verse will be felt quite different. 
And if, in order to relish the things of Christ, 
which by nature I abhor, my soul must under- 
go a change, how can this be accomplished but 
by the Holy Spirit working in me and upon 
me, ‘to will and to do, of his good pleasure?” 
When I sit down in my closet alone, with my 
Bible in my hand, I lift up my soul to God, 
and ask him to bless the word I am to read, 
Of what use is this if there be no inworking 
18* 


210 LETTER IX. 


Spirit? If he has no access at all to me save 
through the outward word, then what can he 
do for me which the word alone cannot do? 
If he be precluded from direct contact with 
my soul, then he can afford me no better help 
than any human friend. Nay, not so much. 
For the friend can converse with me, reason 
with me, place the matter before me in differ- 
ent aspects; but the Spirit has no living voice 
to reach the external ear. What He has writ- 
ten, He has written; and there it remains. 
He has no means, therefore, of explaining it to 
me if he has no direct access to my soul. If 
he were on earth, embodied in a visible form, 
then he might speak to me, and address me 
outwardly ; then he might explain and inter- 
pret according as I needed his aid, though even 
this operation from without would not change 
a heart of stone into one of flesh. But seeing 
he is not so, then how can he reach me? He 
has given me the Bible; if I can understand 
it myself, I have no need of him. If I cannot, 
then how can he make me understand it if he 
cannot lay his finger directly upon my inner 
man? If I hate the truth, then how can he 
change hatred into love? How can he make 
me cease to hate it, if he can only deal with 
me through outward means, if he can only ap- 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WorRD. ‘211 


proach me through that very thing which I 
hate and repel? If my heart be by nature 
enmity to God, then how foolish to speak of 
removing that enmity by merely teaching me 
more regarding that very thing which I hate.* 

5. His being in the word, and thus working 
equally on all that hear the word, is given as 
the reason why sinners are so responsible for 
believing, and so guilty in not believing. Our 
opponents take credit for holding the necessity 
of the Spirit’s work in conversion, but maintain 
that he works equally in every man, and that 
were it not for this they could not call on sin- 
ners to believe the gospel. Now, is not-this 
an admission that there is in sinners an inabil- 
ity which it requires the power of another to 


* It is plain that if these views of the Spirit’s work be 
correct, He does no more for souls than the minister who 
preaches. And this is in part admitted by some. Dr. Porter 
of America remarks that a popular preacher in that country 
made use of the following language. “In renewing men, the 
Spirit employs means; he does not come and take right hold 
of the heart and perform an operation upon it; but he pre- 
sents motives; he persuades by means of truth, and the heart 
is overcome... . to change men’s hearts requires only the 
presentation of truth by the Spirit of God. His influence 
differs not at all from that of the preacher, except in degree.” — 
Letters on Revivals, p. 84. Finney also has the following 
remark in his twelfth Lecture on Revivals: “ In speaking of 
this change, it is perfectly proper to say that the Spirit 
turned him, just,as you would say of a man who had persua- 
ded another to change his mind on the subject of politics, that 
he had converted him and brought him over.” 


212 LETTER IX. - 


remove? It does not matter in what way 
power operates, they are obliged to confess that 
there is an inability which the sinner cannot 
remove of himself—an inability which needs 
the Spirit’s power to overcome. But further, 
it is just saying that man is not responsible iz 
himself,—that it is this universal gift of the 
Spirit, that constitutes his responsibility, and 
that, but for this, it would be unjust in God 
to call on him to believe. This of course is 
just the old Arminian theory of universal grace. 
In it all obligation and responsibility are founded 
on this grace which is said to be given to every 
man. So that if there was no grace, there 
could be no duty. Thus man’s cuilt was de- 
nied, and thrown over upon God. His ac- 
countability was represented not as arising out 
of the nature which God had originally given 
him, but out of this universal grace which God 
had superadded sinee the fall, without which 
God could not in common justice call on the 
sinner either to keep his law or to believe his 
gospel. Thus, man is not only in himself 
helpless, which they are thus obliged to admit, 
but his helplessness is not sinful! Tt is a 
helplessness which God is either bound to re- 
move by some universal operation of the Spirit, 
or else to treat as innocent! It is confessed 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 913 


that his depravity is such as to need the Spir- 


it’s power for its removal; but it is maintained 
that, were that not given, he would not be ac- 


countable for it, nor called on to abandon it. 
It is this universal gift of the Spirit that is the: 
origin, the ground, the measure of man’s re- 


- sponsibility ! 


A favorite and frequent illustration of these 


views is taken from the eleventh chapter of 


Matthew, in which they say that the Lord de- 
clares that an influence was exerted upon 
Chorazin and Bethsaida, sufficient to have con- 
verted Tyre and Sidon.” From this they infer 
two things :—that God is using with all sin- 
ners an influence sufficient to convert them, 
and that this influence is merely outward, not 
inward ; the words and deeds of Jesus being 
all the influence made use of. 

Now, arguing in their own way, it would 
appear from this passage, that Jesus says, that 
an influence was at work, sufficient to have 
converted Tyre, but not sufficient to have con- 
verted Chorazin. How can this prove that 
God is using with all sinners an influence suf- 
ficient to convert them? One would naturally 
suppose that it proved precisely the reverse. 
The influence, it is said, would have converted 
Tyre. But Chorazin was far worse than 


214 LETTER IX. 


Tyre, more hardened, more unbelieving. It 
would require then a much greater influence 
than that which the Lord was putting forth ; 
for what he was putting forth was only enough 
to have converted Tyre ! 

Again, we ask, who made the difference be- 
tween ‘l'yre and Chorazin? Was it not Je- 
hovah in his sovereignty ? Who dispensed to 
Tyre the lesser blessing and to Chorazin the 
greater? A sovereign Jehovah. Who with- 
held from Tyre the influence that would have 
converted it? Jehovah in his sovereignty. 
Why did he withhold it? It seemed good in 
his sight. ) 

We know of no passage which more dis- 
tinctly and more solemnly declares God’s ab- 
solute sovereignty. He did far more for Chor- 
azin than for Tyre, yet we are told by some 
that ‘he has done the utmost that he ean do 
for every sinner.” Had he done for Chorazin 
what he did for Tyre, repentance would have 
followed ; yet he did not do it. “What would 
have converted Tyre, was withheld from Tyre. 
What would have converted Sodom was not 
given to Sodom. What would have converted 
Chorazin, was not given to Chorazin. Is not 
all this manifest sovereignty ? 

These remarks will obviate the difficulty 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 215 


that has been raised, without imposing on us 
the necessity of entering at length into the 
meaning of the passage. 

6. If the Spirit work only through the word, 
how can we have access to the souls of infants? 
They cannot understand the word, yet we 
know that he works in them, else all who die 
in infancy must be lost. He wrought in the 
soul of John the Baptist, and as we have rea- 
son to believe in many others, from the womb. 
In such cases it must have been a direct opera- 
tion of his hand upon the soul before it was 
possible that the truth could take effect, or be 
employed by him as an instrument. Here 
then is a large class of cases in which the 
Spirit works directly, by the immediate touch 
of his hand upon the soul. And this shows us 
that he can and does act oftentimes without 
any outward means.* 

Well, but does this prove anything with re- 
gard to those of riper years? We think it does. 
First of all, it shows that the Spirit can oper- 
ate upon the soul directly, without any out- 
ward means at all. And secondly it gives us 
an insight into the way in which he works 


* Perhaps I may be allowed to refer here to two tracts of 
the Kelso Series upon the Holy Spirit, in which you will find 
this momentous subject treated more at length than can be 
done here. Nos, 9 and 13. ; 


216 LETTER IX. 


through means. ‘Take the case of one of these 
children in whom he has been working from 
infancy ; trace the progress of his work on- 
wards to maturer years. During the time in 
which the child could not know the truth, he 
was working upon the soul; and when the 
moment came that it did understand the truth, 
did he stay his hand, did he withdraw his 
touch, did he cease working in the way in 
which he had hitherto been doing? Did he not 
continue his direct working just as before ? 
The only difference was, that now, the mind 
in which he was operating, began to take on 
the shape and mould of the truth externally 
applied to it. Previously he had been’working 
upon the clay alone ; but now the clay and the 
mould are brought into contact, and henceforth 
all his operations are in connection with both. 
With the one hand he continues to operate 
upon the clay, and with the other he applies 
the mould. These are two distinct processes, 
one direct, 7. e., upon the clay; the other indi- 
rect, 2. €., upon the mould. 

Let us take another instance. The word is 
likened by our Lord to seed. ‘ The good seed 
of the word,” is that which is sown. But this 
is sown in various soils; and however good the 
seed may be, if the soil be bad, it will bear no 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 217 


fruit. Until the soil be made good, the seed 
will not spring up. The seed may be the very 
best; it may be sown by the most skilful sower, 
and in the most skilful way; it may be shone 
upon by a genial sun; it may be watered with 
refreshing showers; but all this will not make 
it grow. Why? Because the soil is bad; it 
is sown in sand. No skillin the sower, no ex- 
cellence in the seed, will convert sand into good 
soil. No showers nor sunshine will make sand 
fertile. There must be a direct process alter- 
ing the character of the soz/, before the seed 
will spring up. To make the soil fruitful 
through means of the seed is an impossibility. 
What husbandman would speak in such a 
way? Would he speak about putting power 
into the seed to fertilize the soul? Would he 
speak of getting at the soil through the seed 
alone? Would he think of rectifying the soil 
through means of the seed alone? ‘Would he 
not at once set about the direct process of ma- 
nuring in order to change the soil and make it 
fruitful? And what would you think of a 
man who would say to you, ‘‘ Oh, Ido not deny 
the necessity of a power being put forth to 
change the soil; all I say is, that it must be 
put forth through the seed alone; the soil must 
not be touched directly, that would be an in- 
19 


218 LETTER IX. 


terference with the laws of nature; the power 
is in the seed; let the seed be well lodged in 
the ground, and it will soon show its power to 
change the soil.” Would you not say that, 
whatever his professions might be, he did not 
really believe in any external or separate power 
at all, but that the soil and the seed contained 
all the power that was needed, and that the 
idea of a power operating independent of both 
was equally unnatural and absurd? In like 
manner, when men say, “‘Oh, we do not deny 
the Spirit’s work and power, we merely say, 
that his power isin the word,” I must say that 
I find it hard to understand how these men be- 
lieve in a Holy Spirit at all. 

The only way of getting over this difficulty 
is, by supposing some small remaining good- 
ness about the soil, into which the seed may 
strike its roots. If this be admitted, then I 
understand the matter. But if the soil be 
totally and utterly barren, then nothing can be 
more unintelligible than to speak of a power 
in the seed, by which it is able to spring up, 
without any direct process being applied to the 
soil. 

Or let me take another example. Dayvid’s 
prayer was, ‘‘ open thou mine eyes that I may 
behold wondrous things out of thy law.” These 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 219 


are plain words. David asks God to open his 
eyes, in order that, being opened, he may be- 
hold these wondrous things. He knew some- 
thing about the law; he knew that there were 
wondrous things in it. These he longed to 
see, but his eyes were closed and dim. What 
was his remedy? In God alone. In God di- 
rectly, not through the medium of anything 
else. God’s touch alone, direct and immedt- 
ate, could open David’s eyes. Had he lived 
in our day, and complained of dim and closed 
eyes, he would have been told, “‘ Now you must 
not pray, you must not go to God to tell him 
your disease, and say, open mine eyes; you 
must just set the object before you; there is 
power in the object to open your eye; but to 
go to God himself and seek the direct forth- 
putting of his power upon your eye, is nothing 
but unbelief of his word.” But David knew 
better than these miserable comforters. He 
knew himself and his disease better than they 
did; he knew the real seat of the disease, and 
the real nature of the cure required, better 
than they; he knew his gracious God, his 
healer, his enlightener, better than they; and 
therefore he went directly to him, imploring 
the direct touch of his hand. 

He felt exactly as blind Bartimeus felt. He 


220 LETTER IX. 


knew that he was blind, and he wanted to see. 
Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. He was 
said to be able to open the eyes of the blind by 
his touch. Accordingly he went and was cured. 
And how? Did Jesus say,—‘‘ Don’t come to 
me and cry for the opening of your eyes, but 
just look before you at these objects of light ; 
they have power in them to make you see; I 
only work through them; I do not put forth 
my power directly upon the eye; I only put it 
forth indirectly through these objects, and in 
no other way ?” No, he touched his eyes, and 
said, Receive thy sight. ‘Thus the eye of the 
body was cured; and thus the eye of the soul 
is also cured. 

But is it not said, ‘‘ The commandment of 
the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes?” (Ps. 
xix.8.) Yes, itis. But whatof this? Does 
this contradict the other? No. In the first 
place, it is not said here, that the word opens, 
but merely that it enlightens the eyes. In the 
second place, I admit most fully the efficacy of 
the word: “It isa lamp to our feet, and a 
light to our path.” I do not in the very least 
depreciate the word of the living God. I wish 
merely to assign to it the place which God 
does. I see men superseding the Spirit, and 
setting aside his work, under pretence of hon- 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 221 


oring the word. And it is this that I refuse to 
do. I admit the blessed efficacy of the word; 
but I maintain also the direct agency of the 
Holy Spirit upon the soul in order to the re- 
ception of that word. ‘The word is our light, 
but there must be an “ opening of the eye” by 
the Spirit, ere there can be a “ beholding of 
the wondrous things out of the law.”* 

I confess I do not see of what use the Holy 
Spirit is in such a system. Man has all the 
requisite power ; he needs no foreign aid; the 
truth is presented to him, with all suitable mo- 
tives and persuasives,—what more is needed ? 
In such a case it would be but mocking him 
to tell him of the Holy Spirit. There is no 
need of any help in the matter, far less of Di- 
vine help. For omnipotence to interpose when 
no strength is needed beyond what the man 
possesses, is a superfluous expenditure of power, 
a mere mockery of help. If the new theorists 
be correct, there is no necessity for the work 
of the Spirit in any sense. If man can do all, 
why call in the aid of the Spirit? To say 
that man needs the Spirit, is just to say that, 
without that Spirit, he could not perform what 


* On this point see Owen on the Spirit, B, ITI. Chap. v. 
§ 18; also Fuller’s works in numerous places; also Edwards 
on the Affections, Part ILI. § 4. 


19* 


999 LETTER IX. 


he is called on todo. If, however, he be really 
able to do all himself, it is absurd to speak of 
any work of the Spirit in him. 

We believe that this point is often stated in 
the following manner— man is equally and 
in the same sense able to believe God’s truth — 
as the devil’s lie.” ‘This I think is the strong- 
est as well as the simplest way in which the 
matter can be,put. Well. It will be admit- 
ted that, in no sense whatever, is the Spirit’s 
aid needed or given in order to believe the lie ; 
therefore, in no sense whatever and tn no way 
whatever, either in the word or with the word, 
is the Spirit needed or given to enable man to 
believe the truth. Surely this is the honest 
and -the plain conclusion from a statement 
which, from the triumphant way in which it 
is generally put, seems to be reckoned irresist- 
ible. ‘Tio speak of any work of the Spirit 
whatsvever, either in or out of the word, is to 
say that man is zo? equally and in the same 
sense able to believe the truth of God, as he 
is to believe the lie of the devil. Therefore, 
we infer that either this noted proverb must 
be abandoned, or else the Holy Spirit and his 
work, in every sense and in every way, must 
be denied. If aman no more needs the Spirit 
in order to his believing a lie, than in order to 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. pads 


his believing the truth, it is plain that he 
needs no Holy Spirit at all. Why then is the 
Spirit and his work not totally denied? Men 
are not yet prepared for that. The name 
must in the mean time be retained. In a 
short time this may be unnecessary. 

It has been sometimes said, ‘‘Is it not just 
as easy to believe as not to believe, as easy to 
turn to God as to turn away from God?” If 
this merely meant that the same faculties are 
required for both, there would be no harm in 
the expression. But if it mean that our souls 
are so well balanced, so entirely free, so little 
injured by the fall, that they can move with 
the same facility towards God as from God, 
we deny and condemn the statement. On ac- 
count of our bondage to sin and bias to evil, it 
is mot as easy for us to be holy as to be un- 
holy. The corrupt state of our souls has made 
the difference. But then, ‘‘ we are not free 
‘agents,” it will be said. What, is God not 
free because he ‘‘ cannot lie ?”* Must we not 
say that the angels are free agents, unless we 
can say it is as easy for them to blaspheme as 
to praise, to rebel as to obey? Their perfect 

* The actings of Christ's human soul were all necessarily 


holy, yet were they not entirely voluntary and free? See 
Edwards’ remarks on this. Freedom of the Will, Part IIL 


8 2, 


224 LETTER IX. 


holiness has made disobedience as impossible 
to them as our corruption has made obedience 
impossible to us. Is it not their highest glory 
as well as their completest liberty that they 
cannot disobey? And is it not our deepest 
shame and guilt and bondage that sin has such 
dominion over us, that even when to will is 
present with us, how to perform that which is 
good, we find not ? 

And as to this “ power in the word,” of 
which so much is spoken, I confess it is a 
mystery to me. ‘That there is power in the 
word—that the word of God is a powerful 
word, I cordially admit. In no other words is 
there such a power and majesty. There are 
no words like the words of God for excelleney 
and strength. Words so weighty, so fit, so 
full, so big with meaning, are nowhere else to 
be found. ‘Though in themselves they be but 
the language of the creature, the poor speech | 
of man, yet it is the Almighty voice that 
speaks through them; it is the thoughts of 
God himself which they contain. If this is 
all that is meant by power being in the word, 
then no one will dispute the matter. But this 
is not ali. Nay, this is not the point at all. 
No one denies that the words are the words 
of God, and that they contain the thoughts of 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 308 


God. But the question is, Do these words 
contain some mysterious power of making 
these thoughts to be known and felt by the 
sinner? Do they contain a power, ¢ndepen- 
dent of their meaning, to make the sinner 
feel these thoughts which they contain? If 
it is said, ‘“*Oh, no, they contain no such 
power apart from their meaning; but these 
thoughts, conveyed by means of the word, 
have the power :” then we must say, that this 
is hardly intelligible, or, at least, does not 
touch the point. For thoughts, and words, 
and ideas, are passive things; whereas, ac- 
cording to this idea, they are active things, a 
living agency capable of operating upon the 
mind by means of a mysterious power with 
which they are impregnated. But even grant- 
ing that they did possess some such active 
power, still the difficulty is not explained. 
For the state of the sinner’s soul is such as 
to repel and resist that power. And how is 
this repelling and resisting attitude of the sin- 
ner to be removed? ‘Take an illustration. 
Suppose the window of my house is darkened 
by a wall which excludes the sun. The sun- 
beams beat upon the wall, but still it remains, 
nay, it grows harder and more impenetrable 
under their influence. Had it been a wall of 


226 LETTER IX. 


ice, it would have melted away, but its nature 
is such as to harden, not to soften, under these 
beams. And how then is the evil to be rem- 
edied ? By putting greater power into the 
sunbeams? That is an absurdity. Besides, 
it is the nature of the wall to resist the sun- 
beam, and to harden under it; and to put ad- 
ditional power into the sunbeam would only 
be to call forth additional resistance, and pro- 
duce more induration. The remedy is plainly 
the removing of the wall by a power fitted for 
that purpose—a power (if you like) going 
along with the sunbeams, and operating sim- 
ultaneously, but still a direct power put forth 
upon the fabric for its overthrow. 

I know that this illustration is a very imper- 
fect one. It fails in many points of resem- 
blance. But still it does not make the case 
of the sinner worse than it really is. Nay, it 
does not bring out the worst feature of the 
case. It does not show the active and positive 
resistance to the light which the sinner puts 
forth, and which is far worse and far harder to 
be overcome than the resistance of mere in- 
animate matter. If, then, it be said, that I 
have misrepresented and misstated the case, 
all I shall say is, that I have understated the 
case; but I have not mds-stated it. The difh- 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 227 


culty is far greater than such an illustration 
can give us the least idea of. 

I do hold, then, @ power along with the 
word, and in connection with the word ; but 
to say, that that power is 7m the word, is either 
a mere figure of speech, or it is an absurdity. 
When God said, ‘‘ Let there be light,” there 
went out a power along with the word, and 
the light came into being. Who would say 
that the power was im the word? When 
Jesus stood at the grave of Lazarus, and said, 
** Lazarus come forth,” there went out a power 
along with the word; yet how absurd to say 
that it was 7m the word. 

It is most needful to maintain the instru- 
mentality of the word in conviction, conversion, 
and sanctification.* The whole process from 
first to last, which the Spirit accomplishes, is 
in connection with the word. The reverse of 
this might be shown to be scripturally untrue, 
and philosophically absurd. ‘his is the prin- 
ciple on which God is acting in giving us his 
Bible. It is the principle on which ministers 
act in proclaiming the gospel. We cannot 


* See Greenhill on Ezckiel, p. 73, who, while strongly 
pressing man’s helplessness, and the direct work of the Spirit, 
does not scruple to speak of the word as the “ chariot of the 
Spirit ;” “it is the word that carries the Spirit to men.” See 
also Turrettine de vocatione et fide. Quest. iv. 


228 LETTER IX. 


hold this too strenuously; for the denial of it 
would land us in darkness and mysticism; 
nay, it would be grieving the Spirit of truth. 
But this is totally diverse from saying that 
the Spirit is the word, or that there is a mystic 
power in the word apart from its meaning, or 
that the Spirit only works through the truth. 
There is no question as to its being truth by 
which the soul is impressed ; the only question, — 
is whether it is possible for a depraved being 
(the very essence of whose depravity consists 
in his being ‘ past feeling,” or wnimpressible 
by the truth) to be impressed by it until a 
power has been at work making him ¢mpres- 
stble. In his fallen state he utterly repels the. 
truth,—he is not susceptible of its influence, 
and the question is, how can that, of whose 
influence he is not susceptible, ever act upon 
him until he is made susceptible of receiving 
its influence. 

The truth is, that the sinner is most reluct- 
ant to admit that he is entirely in the hands 
and at the disposal of God, in regard to salva- 
tion. He wants to have salvation completely 
at his own disposal. He sees, that if he can 
succeed in proving that there is no power apart 
from the word, nothing but what is contained 
in the word, he becomes the disposer of his 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 999 


own destiny. But if he admit a power not in 
the word, a power coming direct from God, 
then he is at the disposal of God. This is the 
secret of the modern idea of the Spirit being 
tn the word. Man wants to be his own Sa- 
viour, and, therefore, he tries to prove that 
God has made him so by giving him the word, 
and putting enough of power into it to save 
him. ‘This shows us clearly man’s dislike to 
the sovereign will of God, and his reluctance 
to admit that he is entirely at the mercy of 
God. But it reveals something more. It 
shows us that, after all, he does not feel him- 
self safe in God’s hands, and, therefore, he 
wishes to take salvation into his own. ‘And ~ 
what is this but a clear proof that these very 
men who speak so loudly of a free gospel, and 
of the love of God, do not believe that gospe 
and do not give credit to that love. If they 
did, they would not be so anxious to take sal- 
vation ont of God’s hands. They would feel 
far safer in his hands than in their own. And 
these ideas of theirs, instead of clearing up 
and enforcing the gospel, plainly prove that the 
gospel of the grace of God is not understood 
atall. These men have yet to learn what the 
gospel is. It is from the dark suspicions of 
their own hearts as to the character of God 
20 


930 LETTER IX. 


that this attempt to wrest salvation out of his 
hands, and to place it in their own, proceeds. 

Let me illustrate the point before us a little 
farther. I shall state the following case. Itis 
no mere imaginary one. A dull, stupid scholar 
once sat beside an intelligent teacher, who 
sought to instruct him in the things of God. 
The Bible lay upon the knees of both. But 
it was in vain. The boy could not be got 
even to understand the truth regarding the 
way of life. The teacher explained, and sim- 
plified, and illustrated, but with no effect, 
Often did he wish that he had direct access to 
the boy’s soul, that he might touch its secret 
springs, and rectify his understanding. He 
felt that nothing save this could be of any 
avail. But he could only dwell upon the 
“ruth, endeavor to open it up more fully, and 
press it clearly home. Thus, day after day, 
sat the teacher in his helplessness, and the 
scholar in his dulness. Meanwhile the former 
failed not to commend the boy to God, asking 
Him who had access to its hidden springs to 
touch them; asking that Spirit, who alone 
could renew, and enlighten, and enable to com- 
prehend, to do his work upon the soul, that 
the truth might at length find entrance. 
Thus he prayed, and the teaching was given : 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 931 


up as hopeless. One day his pupil came 
eagerly to him, exclaiming, ‘‘ Now I understand 
it all.” ‘Who taught you?” ‘No one.” 
“How did you come to see it?” “Oh! ina 
moment I saw it ; and it is just the very thing 
you have been telling me so long, but I never 
saw it till now: God has opened my eyes.” 
And so it was. That Holy Spirit, who alone 
has access to the soul of man, had put forth 
his power, and the boy’s dulness had given 
way. But the work had not been through the 
truth upon his soul; it had been directly upon 
his soul, in order to his understanding the 
truth. It had been exactly what David sought 
for in his own case, “ Give me understanding 
that I may learn thy commandments,” (Psalm 
exix. 73.)* is | 


* It is remarkable how David, throughout this psalm, 
prays in this strain; and yet, at the same time, he says, 
“Through thy precepts I get’ understanding.” Both ‘of 
these things are true. And to deny either of them would 
contradict the plain word of God. I admit, most readily, 
the one truth, that through God’s precepts we get under- 
standing ; and all I ask is, that the other truth be admitted 
also, that it is the Holy Spirit who opens our eyes, and 
“makes us to understand.” The two things are quite con- 
sistent with each other, and we gain nothing by denying 
either. Each of these agencies operates in its own way, and 
according to its own nature: the word in one way according 
to its nature, and the Spirit in another according to his na- 
ture. The only question is, which is first? Certainly the 
Spirit. He brings the soul into contact with the word. He 
Softens the heart, that the word may be felt. “Hé opens the 


232 LETTER IX. 


Let me take another instance. There was 
a poor idiot who could be made to understand 
nothing. All his life he had been an idiot, and 
as an idiot, he lay down to die. Beside his 
bed there stood a man calling himself a minis- 
ter of Christ, who came to make mirth with 
the dying idiot. ‘That man had read his Bible, 
knew well about it, and had often preached 
from it. Yet his ‘“‘ understanding was dark- 
ened.” As he stood at the bedside, all of a 
sudden the idiot broke forth with the following 


eyes that the word may be seen. He makes tender the con- 
science that the word may penetrate. He was first in the 
old creation. He is first in the new. The following para- 
graph from Fuller is so appropriate, that I must be allowed 
to quote it here :—*“ It is owing to Divine agency, and to that 
alone, that one sinner rather than another believes in Christ. 
If God does the same for one man as for another, how does 
he yet make men to differ ? If God works effectually on some, 
that is more than any man will pretend he does upon all; 
and this will perfectly account for a difference between one 
sinner and another..... God has so constituted the human 
mind, that words, whether spoken or written, shall have an 
effect upon it. The Holy Spirit speaks to men in his word. 
It would be strange if God’s word had not some effect upon 
people’s mind. The influence of the word upon the mind, 
seeing that the word is indited by the Holy Spirit, may be 
called, in an indirect and figurative sense, the influence of the 
Holy Spirit. It was by this kind of influence that he strove 
with the antediluvians, (Gen. vi. 8.) This influence ought to 
sutlice to bring us to repent of sin, and believe in Christ, and 
were it not for the resistance that is made to it, would have 
such an effect. But through the perverseness of the human 
heart, it never has. From the depravity or perverseness of 
the human heart arises the necessity of a special and effectual 
influence of the Holy Spirit. 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WoRD. 233 


‘confession of his faith” before the astounded 
hearers :— 


“Three in one, and one in three, 
And the middle’s the one that has saved me.” 


Then he died. No onehad heard the like from 
him before. It was strange and new. Who 
taught him? God. Who opened his under- 
standing? God. Who put these words into 
his tongue? God. Who made the poor idiot, 
who could not read a Bible, to differ from the 
scoffing minister that had read it a thousand 
times? God. And was it through the truth, 
that he gave understanding to hate who had 
none? No one in his right mind would speak 
thus. No. In this case it was the direct touch 
of the Spirit’s hand upon the soul that did the 
work. It was from within, and not from with- 
out, that the renewing power care. He who 
made the soul, put forth his power and made 
it new. It seemed like a broken harp. The 
mere frame-work was there; but everything 
else had been torn away. Not one note could 
be struck. But God needed that harp to swell 
the new song in heaven. And ere it was “vile- 
ly cast away,” he took it into his own Almighty 
hand, re-placed the strings, re-tuned them all, 
and then, ere he removed it from earth, struck 
one dying note of thrilling power and beauty, 
20* 


234 LETTER IX. 


to let men know what a goodly instrument he 
could make out of that broken harp, from 
which no music had ever come before. 

Let me take another case. Look at the 
prophets in the Old, and the apostles in the 
New Testament! Who taught them to speak 
and write? It is said, ““Holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 
In teaching them, then, he must have had ac- 
cess directly to their souls. He entered at 
once into their understandings, and taught 
them. In their case, certainly, there must 
have been a direct operation upon the soul. 
Now I know that there is no such kind of in- 
spiration now. ‘This miraculous utterance of 
new truth has ceased. But I cite this exam- 
ple, in order to disprove the assertion of those 
who maintain that the Spirit has no direct 
access to the soul, no way of instructing us, 
save through the truth. And I also adduce 
it, because I believe that the method which 
God took to show the prophets truths abso- 
lutely new and unheard of, bears a strong re- 
semblance to the way in which he still shows 
the sinner truth which is new to him—truth 
of which he understood as little as did the 
prophets before God had spoken. And T spe- 
cially adduce it to prove, that even when the 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 235 


Holy Spirit is thus moving and actuating the 
whole soul by an internal energy, man is still 
a free agent and a responsible being—respon- 
sible for receiving or resisting the Spirit. The 
prophets were not mere machines, through 
which God wrote and spoke, while they them- 
selves felt nothing, having no real sympathy 
with what they uttered, but merely uttering 
it because compelled. On the contrary, we 
see in their case a soul acted on in strict ac- 
cordance with all the natural laws of its being 
—nay, each soul acted on in accordance with 
its own peculiar temperament and gifts of 
mind. The Spirit of God fills him, but does 
not force him: He pours himself into all his 
faculties, feelings, sympathies, &c., as into so 
many human vessels which he wishes to em- 
ploy in conveying his thoughts to man; but 
he does violence to none of these. When, for 
instance, he speaks through Jeremiah, he casts 
himself entirely into the tender mould of that 
prophet’s mournful spirit, using his gentle 
voice, weeping with his eyes, sighing in his 
complaint, giving divine expression and utter- 
ance to every feeling, nay, to every shade of 
feeling working in that human heart. Was 
Jeremiah less free, less himself, in such a 
case? Nay, he never was so free before. 


236 LETTER IX. 


He never was so much himself before, as 
when he who made his spirit took it into his 
hands, and drew out of it depths of feeling, 
richness of melody, beauty of perception, gen- 
tleness of sympathy, utterance of infinite 
thought, which showed of what that soul was 
capable, when made entirely free by the in- 
dwelling Spirit, and touched by the master 
hand of the ‘chief musician,” who alone 
knew, and who only could call forth its secrets 
of full melody,—the whole diapason of the 
harp which he himself had made and strung. 

In confirmation of the preceding remarks let 
me proceed to quote and examine a few passa- 
ges of Scripture. 

I. Luke xi. 12, “ When they bring you 
unto the synagogues and unto magistrates 
and powers, take no thought how or what 
things ye shall answer, for the Holy Ghost 
shall teach you in the same hour what ye 
ought to say.” Here, then, we have the di- 
rect and immediate operation of the Spirit 
upon the soul, suggesting suitable truth for the 
occasion. And any one reading the chapter 
will see that this promise is to a// believers, 
not to the apostles alone. It refers not to 
what we would call miraculous inspiration, 
but to the ordinary operation of the Spirit. 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 237 


Oh, it will be said, but he does this by means 
of the truth. Now what does this mean, but 
that he suggests truth through the truth; that 
is, I suppose, he suggests one truth by means 
of another; in other words, one truth suggests 
another without his interference at all. But 
even granting that he suggests one truth by 
means of another, granting that this is all that 
is meant by the Spirit’s teaching, the question 
naturally occurs, who or what suggested the 
jirst of the series? If I stand upon the mar- 
gin of some lake, and find all of a sudden rip- 
ple after ripple beating upon the grass that 
skirts it, I look round to see the cause of this, 
—what began the rippling. How absurd to 
say, Oh! it is merely one ripple raising anoth- 
er, and forcing it forward to the shore. I am 
sure it was either the wind that suddenly rose 
or some stone that had been cast into the 
waters. Some such cause must have begun 
the series. And so with truth, in the case I 
have referred to. Even granting that the 
Spirit did suggest one truth by means of 
another, how will this account for the sugges- 
tion of the first? This must have been done 
in some more direct way, and by some more 
immediate touch. So that the difficulty stall 
remains; only in the one case it is removed a 


238 LETTER IX. 


little further back, and placed a little more 
out of sight, as if there was a reluctance to 
admit the idea of God working directly, as 
if such an idea were only fitted to alarm and 
discourage the sinner. 

With the daily consciousness of having with- 
in me a heart of sin, a hard and ever-rebelling 
heart, I know not for myself a more blessed, 
more precious truth, than that I am the clay 
and God is the potter,—that it is A7s hand 
that grasps me, compassing me about, and 
coming into close, direct, warm contact with 
my naked soul. The thought of nothing but 
indirect dealing and communication between 
him and me, is desolate and cold to me beyond 
conception. And instead of feeling relieved 
and comforted by being told that the Spirit 
never works directly upon the soul, but only 
through the truth, I am cast down indeed, as if 
bereaved of that which was my chiefest hope, 
my most precious consolation in the hours of 
infirmity and conflict, when the flesh within, 
and principalities and powers without, assail 
me till I faint upon the field, and all that bears 
me up is the felt grasp of an infinite hand, 
the circling pressure of the everlasting arm. 

II. Rom. viii. 26, “ Likewise the Spirit also 
helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 239 


we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit 
itself maketh intercession for us with groans 
ings which cannot be uttered.” 'This is some- 
thing very distinct in regard to the working 
of the Holy Spirit. He helpeth our infirmi- 
ties, or, as it literally implies, he takes hold of 
our burden, puts his shoulder under it, and 
sustains the weight so as to prevent it crush- 
ing us. How he can do all this, simply and 
only through the truth, it is hard to discover. 
What words can more strongly express his 
direct operation upon the soul? If they do 
not express this, | know not where words can 
be found to do so. But the case is far stron- 
ger when we consider the expression, ‘‘ groan- 
ings that cannot be uttered.” How does he 
awaken those groanings within, which cannot 
be clothed in words? By suggesting truth to 
the soul? This is absurd. If the spirit pre- 
sented truth to the soul, and in that way cre- 
ated these longings, then surely the soul could 
express these longings. ‘They had been dis- 
tinctly and definitely presented to him, and 
surely he could distinctly and definitely speak 
of them. If this had been said merely of the 
poor unlettered saints, this objection of mine 
might not be altogether applicable, for I know 
that oftentimes they cannot find words where- 


240 LETTER IX. 


by to express their thoughts; but it is of all 
saints equally that the apostle is speaking. If 
in answer to all this it is said that we fre- 
quently get glimpses of truth, natural truth, 
which awaken in us longings which we can- 
not express, I admit that such is the case; but 
if this be all that is affirmed by the apostle 
here, there was no necessity for introducing the 
Spirit at all. His statement in that case is 
most incorrect, and fitted to mislead; for he 
speaks of the Spirit actually making interces- 
sion for us (or in us) with those groanings that 
cannot be uttered. He is represented as one 
who has come into us, and taken up his abode 
in us, as one who thus carries on a work from 
within by means of a direct, though hidden 
agency ; as one who is so identified with us, 
that the apostle speaks of his prayers and ours, 
his voice and ours, as if they were one. He is 
represented here as dwelling in us, filling us, 
using our faculties and organs as instruments 
for expressing himself, till, as his operations 
upon the soul becume more close and power- 
ful, faculties, words, voice, give way, and noth- 
ing comes forth but the unutterable groan. 
This, surely, is something very direct. It 
conveys most plainly the idea that there is no 
intervention of anything (be it the truth or 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 241 


aught else,) between the touch of the Almighty 
hand and the soul in which he is dwelling. It 
shows us a workman within, carrying on his 
operations there, quickening, fashioning, mould- 
ing all things to his will,—bringing every part 
of the soul into contact with the truth that is 
without, by means of the pressure of his own 
hand from within.* 

Ill. 1 Cor. xii. 3, “No man can say that 
Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 
This expression corresponds to many others in 
the New Testament, such as these: ‘ Flesh 
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
my Father which is in heaven,” (Matt. xvi. 
17 ;) ‘‘God who commanded the light to shine 
out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to 
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of 
God in the face of Jesus Christ,” (2 Cor. iv. 6 ;) 
‘When it pleased God, who separated me from 
my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 
to reveal his Son in me,” (Gal. i. 15.) These 
passages all suggest the same idea,—that it is 


* It seems to be maintained that resisting the Spirit sig- 
nifies only resisting him as working through means ; as if we 
did not resist him directly at all. Now, we admit that to 
resist the means, is in a certain sense to resist the Spirit. But 
is this all that is meant by resisting, grieving. vexing the Holy 
Spirit? No. All the expressions used employ something far 
more direct and personal than this, especially that exhorta- 
tion—“ Quencu not the Spirit.” 


21 


“a 
242 LETTER IX. 


directly through the agency of the Spirit that 
we are enabled to call Jesus Lord, and that 
but for this agency we should have remained 
his enemies. I merely, however, take the first 
of them, (1 Cor. xii. 3,) as being the most suit- 
able to the object I have inview. It occurs in 
a chapter where the miraculous gifts of the 
Spirit are discoursed of, and this enables us to 
fix its meaning with more distinctness. Let 
me cite a verse or two: ‘There are diversities 
of gifts, but the same Spirit ; there are diver- 
sities of operation, but it is the same God 
which worketh all in all; to one is given by 
the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the 
word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to an- 
other faith by the same Spirit ; to another the 
gifts of healing by the same Spirit ; 
all these worketh that one and the self-same 
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
will.” Such is a brief enumeration of the op- 
erations of the Spirit. In these, his mode of 
working is, to a certain extent, plainly enough 
declared. It is direct and immediate. How 
otherwise is it possible that he can confer the 
gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of healing, &c.* 
* Each grace or gift here spoken of was an express mani- 
festation of the Spirit, 3 gavepwors rdv Tvesparos—something 


through which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to his own 
voice, through which he showed forth his own nature. 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 243 


No one in his right mind would say that these 
were conferred through the truth. It must 
have been the direct and immediate touch of 
his hand upon the soul. Nothing else could 
have made them prophesy or speak with 
tongues. Well, it is just in the midst of this 
statement of his works, or rather as the intro- 
duction to them, that it is said, ‘no man can 
say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy 
Ghost.” And what are we to infer from this, 
but that he teaches the soul to own Jesus as 
his Lord, in the same way as he teaches to 
prophesy. If it is said, but the passage refers 
to the inspired teaching of the apostles in pro- 
claiming Jesus to others; I answer, that this 
only confirms my argument, for if the direct 
agency of the Spirit was needed to enable them 
to declare what they knew, much more is that 
same agency needed to show us the things of 
Christ. Hence the apostle says in another 
place, ‘‘now we have received, not the spirit 
of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, 
that we might know the things that are freely 
given to us of God,” 1 Cor. ii. 12. 

IV. Phil. ii. 13. “ J¢cs God that worketh in 
you both to will and to do of his good pleas- 
ure.” ‘This is one of the plainest statements 
we could possibly have had. We are told that 


244 LETTER IX. 


it is God who worketh im us. It is an in- 
ward operation that is spoken of,—an opera- 
tion which none could perform, but he who has 
access to the inmost recesses of the soul. But 
this is not all. We are told more particularly 
in what way he operates upon us, “ both to 
will and to do.” ‘The springs of willing and 
of doing must both be operated upon. The 
hand of the physician must be laid upon the 
diseased organ, else there can be no cure. 
Hence David prayed, ‘“ Incline my heart unto 
thy testimonies,” Ps. cxix. 36. 

V. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. ‘ A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
within you, and I will take away the stony 
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you 
an heart of flesh: and I will put my Spirit 
within you, and cause you to walk in my stat- 
utes.” If this does not denote a direct inward 
operation upon the soul, removing what is old, 
and imparting what is new, we know not how 
language can describe it. To twist such ex- 
pressions, and say that they merely refer to the 
outward means which God uses, is to do the 
most reckless violence to Scripture that can be 
conceived. 

VI. Eph. i. 17. “ The God of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give unto 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WorD. 245 


you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in 
(or, in order to) the knowledge of him, the 
eyes of your understanding being enlightened, 
that ye may know what ts the hope of his call- 
ing.” Here the apostle prays that the Holy 
Spirit may be given to the Ephesians. And he 
speaks of him as the Spirit that imparts wis- 
dom, the Spirit that reveals truth. This Spirit 
is given for the purpose ‘of enlightening the 
eyes of the understanding.” Can anything be 
more explicit than this? Surely the enlight- 
ening the eyes of the understanding must be 
an inward process,—a thing accomplished, not 
through the truth, but in order to their un- 
derstanding the truth. The truth could not be 
known and felt without this inward enlighten- 
ening work of the Spirit. I know that in an- 
other sense the truth does enlighten. And I 
would not on any account undervalue the 
truth. I would rejoice in it as “a lamp unto 
my feet, and a light unto my path.” But when 
I find this kind of enlightenment declared to be 
all that the Spirit does,—when I find his di- 
rect work upon the soul denied, then it is time 
to declare most broadly the whole truth of 
God. And here I would offer a single remark 
upon those passages which speak of the Spirit 
being given “ to them that obey him” (Acts vy. 
ola 


246 LETTER IX. 


32), and of his being “ received through faith.” 
In these our opponents triumph.* ‘They need 
not. J am quite willing to take Scripture 
plainly and naturally, just as I find it. I 
admit at’ once that these passages all refer 
to those blessings which we receive after be- 
lieving, and im consequence of tt. I have 
no doubt about that. It is quite plain that 
we do receive far more abundantly of the 
Spirit after believing. But this has nothing 
at all todo with the question. Admitting that 
we receive the Spirit ‘after believing, does 
that prove that we do not receive him also be- 
fore believing, and im order to believing? ‘The 
truth is, that there is one class of passages 
which speak of what God does in us, and for 
us, before believing ; and another which speak 
of what he does in us, and for us, after be- 
lieving. And both of these declarations must 
be held fast. Our opponents admit the one, 
but deny the other. 

* Tt is remarkable that the Socinians and Neologians are 
quite at one with them on this point. Doederlein, in his 
Institutions of Theology, states at length, and defends the 
views of the latter party, coinciding entirely with the modern 
doctrines. The Racovian Catechism shows us what the 
former (the Socinians) held. In it the question is put—* Do 
we need an internal gift of the Spirit in order to believing 
the gospel?” The answer is, “ By no means: we read in 


Scripture that he is only given to those who have believed 
the Gospel.” 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 247 


VIL. Eph. ii. 16. ‘ Strengthened with 
might by his Spirit in the inner man, that 
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” 
Here is another testimony equally explicit to 
the inward operation of the Holy Spirit. The 
Spirit is said to “strengthen ;” and he is said 
to do this in order ‘‘ that Christ may dwell in 
our hearts by faith.” What meaning has this 
language, if there be no working of the Spirit, 
but the outward and the indirect, through the 
medium of the truth alone? I might refer to 
other passages in this Epistle—i. 19; in. 20. 
In these we read of the “exceeding greatness 
of his power to us-ward who believe, according 
to the working of his mighty power ;” and 
‘the power who worketh in us.” Surely no 
simple-minded reader can fail to see in these 
expressions, the assertion of a power working 
in us, different from that which the word pos- 
sesses. It is along with the word, but it is 
not ¢v the word, but directly in us. In what 
stronger or more explicit language could this 
direct power have been stated ? 

VII. John xx.22. ‘ He breathed on them, 
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost.” ‘This is surely a direct communica- 
tion of the Holy Spirit to the soul. And it 
shows us the way in which the Lord gives the 


248 LETTER IX. 


Spirit. There was nothing indirect here. It 
was not through the truth that this was done. 
It was the direct impartation of the Spirit by 
Christ himself. Not another word was spoken 
through which the Spirit might be said to come 
in. It was just, ‘‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” 
and straightway he was imparted. 

IX. Rom. xv. 18. ‘ That ye may abound 
in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost.” 
It is here stated that it is the power of the 
Holy Ghost that causes us to abound in hope. 
And does this not refer us to a power distinct 
from the word, and distinct from any outward 
influence? Not, indeed, unconnected with the 
word, for doubtless the ‘ hope” rested on the 
sure word of promise ; but still distinet from it, 

X. John xvi.8. ‘ When he is come he will 
convince the world of sin, and of righteous- 
ness, and of gudgment.” ‘This conviction of 
sin can only be effected by working directly 
upon the sinner’s conscience. ‘That conscience 
is seared; it isin love with sin; and never will 
it be convinced of sin, never will it hate it, un- 
til the Spirit operate upon it to remove its 
searedness and insensibility, to soften and 
make it tender. This must be a direct work. 
The natural conscience repels and resists the 
truth, nay, becomes more hardened under it, 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 249 


And to say that it is through the application 
of the truth alone that the conscience is affect- 
ed, is just to say that it is softened by that 
which is hardening it. 

XI. 1 John ii. 20. “Ve have an unction 
from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” 
This unction or anointing of the Holy Spirit is 
that by which we are made to know all things. 
Now an anointing is something which comes 
directly in contact withus. Just as the anoint- 
ing came down on the High Priest, so does the 
Spirit come down on us. Surely this is some- 
thing direct. How can the Spirit anoint us 
through means of the truth? This is an ab- 
surdity. He anoints us in order to our know- 
ing the truth. 

XI. 2Tim.i.14. “ That good thing which 
was committed unto thee, keep, by the Holy 
Ghost which dwelleth in us.” It was the Gos- 
pel, or the truth of God, that was committed 
to Timothy; and this he was to keep, and hold 
fast by means of the Holy Spirit dwelling in 
him. This is manifestly a direct, inward in- 
fluence,—an influence operating upon the soul, 
and enabling it to keep hold of the Gospel. 
What could be more absurd than to suppose 
that the apostle meant to say, ‘ Hold fast the 
truth by means of the truth?” Yet this is 


250 LETTER IX. 


all that some in modern times will allow us to 
say.* 

Let these references suffice. I could quote 
many more equally strong and satisfactory, 
but there is no need. No simple-minded stu- 
dent of the word of God can read such passa- 
ges, without being convinced that the Holy 
Spirit works by a direct, inward operation 
upon the soul. 

But, perhaps, some may here object to much 
of what has been now adduced in favor of the 
direct inworking of the Spirit, by saying that 
they do not deny that He works thus in the 
souls of believers, but that there is no proof 
that he works thus in the soul of the sinner 
before he believes, and in order to his believ- 
ing. With regard to this, I submit the fol- 
lowing remarks :-— 

1. It is an objection that can come only 


* I would here briefly ask how our opponents believe in 
anything like Satanic influence? I do not hold that Satan 
has access to the soul in the same way, and to the same ex- 
tent, to which the Spirit has. But the following passages 
show us, that he has more direct access to it, than by merely 
presenting a lie to us. Luke xxii. 8, “Then entered Satan 
into Judas.” John xiii. 2, “ The devil now put into the heart 
of Judas to betray him.” Acts v. 2, “ Why hath Satan filled 
thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” The demoniacal pos- 
sessions prove this point. All these must be held, actoV hing 
to the new theory, strange interferences with man’s free 
agency—interferences far more difficult to solve than those 
of the Holy Spirit. 


| lll alia 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WoRD. 251 


from a few of the new sect, for most of them 
maintain that the Spirit never works directly 
in any, but always indirectly, whether upon 
believer or unbeliever. 

2. ‘There is no Scriptural reason for suppos+ 
ing that there is one kind of operation in the 
believer, and another in the unbeliever,—that 
in the case of the one it is direct, and in the 
case of the other, indirect. 

3. If the direct work of the Spirit be need- 
ful to carry on the work, much more to begin 
it. The first step is the most difficult; and if 
an unbeliever can take that first step without 
the direct operation of the Spirit, a believer 
may easily take all the rest. On the other 
hand, if a believer needs the direct power of 
the Spirit to carry on the work, much more 
does the sinner need that power to begin it. 

4. There are passages which imply the direct 
work of the Spirit before believing. 

Ezek. xxxvii. 14. “J will put my Spirit 
within you, and ye shall live’’—where the liv- 
ing is the effect of God’s putting his Spirit 
within them. 

Zech. xii. 10. ‘I will pour upon the house 
of David, §c., and they shall look upon me 
whom they have pierced, and mourn?—where 
the looking to Christ is the effect of God’s 


oa 
252 LETTER IX. 


Spirit being poured out, and where the persons 
spoken of were evidently unconverted, who had 
never looked before. 

John xvi. 8. ‘* He will convince the world 
of sin, because they believe not on me”—where © 
it is plain that the Spirit’s work must be before 
and inorder to believing, for it is to show men 
the sin of which they are guilty by remaining 
in unbelief. That is, he comes up to an un- 
believing soul, and shows it its awful guilt, 
and then convinces it of righteousness, 1. e., 
leads it to Christ the righteous one. 

Acts v. 31. “ Him hath God exalted with 
his right hand to be a prince and a Saviour, 
for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive- 
ness of sins.” Here repentance is said to be 
the gilt of the risen Jesus. It is he who gives 
repentance ; and he gives it just as directly 
and decidedly as he gives pardon. It will be 
said, Yes, Christ gives repentance, by sending — 
his messenger to proclaim that truth through 
which repentance is produced. Now, I have 
no doubt that he does this; but is this a// that 
he does? Is this all that the above passage 
implies? Surely to give repentance is some- 
thing very different from merely sending men 
to proclaim the truth which has the tendency 
to produce repentance. To give a man an 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WoRD. 253 


estate is something very different from sending 
instructions to a man as to how he may con- 
trive to procure it for himself. To give re- 
pentance, has reference to something far more 
efficacious, as well as far more gracious and 
loving, than merely to preach to men the truth, 
by which repentance may be wrought in them. 
Acts xi. 21. “ The hand of the Lord was 
with them, and a great number believed, and 
turned unto the Lord.” Tn this statement, it 
is plainly implied, that it was the hand or 
power of the Lord that was the cause of the 
believing of this great number. Had it not 
been for this, none would have believed or 
turned. The first act of believing and turn- 
‘ing, is thus plainly ascribed to the hand of 
‘God,—to that mighty power, which is here 
‘said to have accompanied the preaching of the 
word. It is notsaid the hand of the Lord was 
in the word; but “¢ with them,” that. is, with 
the disciples, for they were men full of the 
Holy Ghost. ‘The words of praying men are 
blessed for the conversion of sinners. Why? 
Because their prayers and faith draw down a 
peculiar blessing which might not otherwise 
have accompanied the gospel. This could not 
be the case if the power were in the word alone. 
Acts xvi. 14. ‘ Whose heart the Lord 


- 


254 LETTER IX. 


opened, that she attended to the things which 
were spoken of Paul.” 'This is very clear. 
Lydia’s heart was shut before, but the Lord 
opened it. It was so shut that she did not 
even attend to what was spoken, far less be- 
lieve them. God opened her closed heart. 
Then she began to attend to the truth; and 
after having attended to it, she believed it. 

In one of a series of Lectures upon the 
leading tenets of the new sect, we have the 
following comment upon this passage :—‘‘ He 
was speaking heart-searching and heart-open- 
ing truth; and by this truth which she heard 
He opened her mind so to attend to what was 
spoken as to believe it. .. . This gives us no 
idea of any other opening of the heart than 
that which takes place by means of the in- 
spired testimony of the apostles.’* Where 
were the faculties of the lecturer wandering to 
when he penned the above statement? It is 
singularly absurd and contradictory. Lydia’s 
heart is closed against the truth; and how is 
this removed? By letting in the truth, says 
the lecturer! Lydia does not even attend to 
the truth. How is this to be overcome? By 
the truth moving her attention to itself! But 
how can the truth make her attentive, if she 


* Lecture ii. p. 15. 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 250 


will not attend to it? Suppose I wish to enter 
a house which has been shut against me, and 
secured by two gates, an outer and an inner. 
I come up to the outer gate, for it is only 
through it that I can pass to the inner. I 
knock, but no attention is given to my sum- 
mons; the dweller is within, but he declines 
to admit me even to a conversation at the door. 
T ask a friend who is nigh what I can do. He 
very simply tells me that I must go into the 
house and converse with the inmate, and per- 
suade him to open the door to me! In vain I 
tell him that the doors are closed, and that I 
cannot get in even at the outer. He just re- 
peats his advice, that in order to get them 
opened, I must go in and persuade the owner 
to unbar them; adding, perhaps, the remark, 
that any other way than this would be an 
encroachment upon human responsibility. Is 
it not clear, then, that God’s opening of Lydia’s 
heart was in order that she might attend to 
and receive that truth which otherwise she 
never would have allowed to enter? Paul 
preached the same “ heart-searching and heart- 
opening truth” to many others in the same 
place ; and how, let me ask, is it said of Lydia 
alone that the Lord opened her heart? Surely 
he did something for her-which he did not do 


206 LETTER IX. 


for the others, and yet we are told by some 
that he works equally in all! Why then is it 
not said he opened the hearts of all, if he bad 
done the same in regard to all? We are told 
that he did no more for Lydia than for any 
other! Yet the passage says he opened her 
heart, and does not say that he opened the 
hearts of others. Oh! but it will be said, 
Lydia yielded, while the rest persisted in un- 
belief. And what does this amount to but 
just this, that the expression ‘“‘ the Lord opened 
the heart of Lydia,” means that Lydia opened 
her own heart, and attended and believed ! 

1 John v.20. ‘ We know that the Son of 
God is come, and hath given us an under- 
standing that we may know him that is true.” 
Here the word translated ‘“ understanding” is 
very explicit. It does not mean knowledge, 
but the power by which we receive knowledge, 
the understanding. It is the same word in 
the original as in Matt. xxii. 37, ‘ with all thy 
soul, and with all thy ménzd:” Eph. i. 18, 
‘The eyes of your understanding being en- 
lightened :” iv. 18, “ Having the wnderstand- 
ing darkened :” Heb. vii. 10, “I will put my 
Jaws into their mind.” These passages show 
us the true sense of the term. And taking all 
these together, how very strong and decided is 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 257 


the apostle’s statement, ‘ He hath given us an 
understanding that we may know him that is 
true.” 

At the same time, while I maintain all this, 
I am quite aware of the many passages in 
which the truth is spoken of as the instrument 
or channel through which the Spirit works. 
I am far from wishing to deny this, or to de- 
preciate the value of the word. All I wish is, 
to preserve you from running into the most 
fatal error of the present day, that the Spirit 
is ‘in the word,” and that he only operates 
through the word, and tn no other way. This 
I consider to be not only unscriptural, but 
thoroughly poisonous to the soul. It is one of 
Satan’s devices in these last days, for produ- 
cing a religion so like the real shape and form 
of godliness, that multitudes will be deceived 
by it; cheating themselves into the belief that 
they are sure of heaven, when they have never 
been born again. Such a religion has no depth. 
It is meagre, lean, and shallow. It is self- ~ 
taught, self-produced religion. For where is 
the indwelling, inworking Spirit in all this? 
Where is the living Saviour himself? Ah! 
he has been superseded by an abstract some- 
thing that men call truth ; and as Israel made 
their God-given law a substitute for the living 

22" 


258 LETTER IX. 


Father, so men are now making the Christ- 
given Gospel a substitute for the living Son! 
I shall conclude this long letter with one 
observation, on which I should gladly have 
dwelt, had there been space. It is this. ‘The 
expression, ‘‘ 7nfluences of the Spirit,” is not a 
Scriptural one, and ought to be avoided. The 
Bible always speaks of the working of the 
Spirit, or the indwelling of the Spirit,—not 
of his mere influences.* And there is a most 
important difference between these two things. 
In the former case, everything connected with 
the Spirit’s operations would be direct and 
personal ; in the latter, there is nothing but a 
certain vagueness which may mean anything, 
‘or nothing at all. The ¢nflwence of a person 
is a very different thing from his personal pres- 
ence and operation. And we ought to be upon 
our guard against this form of expression, 
which I am sorry to think extends far beyond 
the holders of the new theology. It is of an 
' indwelling Spirit that the Bible speaks. It is 
an indwelling Spirit that Christ promises. 
‘¢ He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” 
Jobn xiv. 17. We are not certain objects 
acted upon by some distant influence, as the 
sea is by the moon; we are vessels which the 
* See Greenhill on Ezekiel, pp. 71 and 724. 


THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD. 259 


Spirit fills; we are temples in which the Spirit 
dwells, ‘* Know ye not that ye are the temple 
of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth 
in you?” J Cor. iii. 16.—I am yours, &e. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“The hand of God was to give them one heart to do the 
commandment.’—2 Chron. xxx. 12. 

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right 
spirit within me.”—Psalm li. 10. 

“Quicken us, and we will call on thy name.’—Psalm 
Ixxx. 18. ‘ 

“Thou sendest forth thy Spirit; they are created.”— 
Psalm civ. 30. 

“Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things 
out of thy law.”—-Psalin exix. 18. 

“Incline my heart unto thy testimonies.”——Ps, cxix. 36. 

“ Give me understanding, raat I may LEARN THY COMMAND- 
MENTS.”——Psalin cxix. 73. 

“ Quicken me after thy loving-kindness, so shall I keep the 
testimony of thy mouth.”——Psalm exix. 88, 

“Give me understanding, raar I May KNOW THY TESTIMO- 
niES.”— Psalm exix. 125. 

“Incline not mine heart to any evil thing.”——Ps. exli. 4. 

“Where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him ?— 
Isaiah }xiii, 11. 

“Iwill put a new Spirit within you; and I will take the 
stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of 
flesh.”—-Ezek. xi. 19. 

“TI will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live.”"—-Ezek. 
xxxvil. 14, 

“He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”—John 
Xavi: 17, 

“ As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide 
in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me.’—John 
xv. 4. 

“ Without me ye can do nothing.’”—John xy. 5. 

_“ When he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and 
of righteousness, and of judgment.’—John xvi. 8 


i 


260 LETTER IX. 


“ When he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you 
into all truth.’—John xvi. 13. 

“The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
Ghost which is given unto us.’—Kom. v. 5. 

“Stephen, a man full of the Holy Ghost.’—Acts vi. 5. 

“ Whose heart the Lord opened, that ‘she attended to the 
things that were spoken of Paul.’—Acts xvi, 14. 

“ Be filled with the Spirit.,-—Eph. v. 18, 

“The Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us.’—2 Tim. i. 24. 


NOTE. 


I subjoin a paragraph from one of the letters in “ the Cor- 
respondence of the Congregational Churches.” It contains a 
statement of the error, and a refutation of it. 


“You distinguish the influence of the Spirit for which you 
plead as an influence By means, and that for which we plead 
as an influence ACCOMPANYING means. ‘The latter you disown. 
Now, we have simply to ask you, if there be no influence 
accompanying the means, what else is there but the means $. 
—'I'he engineer may ‘turn on’ the steam; but it is not the 
engineer, it is the steam, and the steam alone, that propels 
the vessel. Suppose you were to say, that the engineer 
‘works by’ the steam, would you add anything to the idea# 
We think not. ‘he steam is still the only power. And whe 
would speak of the wind or the tide resisting the engineer 
working by the steam? The resistance is to the one power— 
that of the steam alone. If there be no converting influence 
accompanying the word, what is there besides the word to 
produce the conversion? If there be no convincing and saving 
influence accompanying the miracles, what is there besides 
the miracles to effect the conviction and the salvation? We 
confess ourselves, therefore, still unable to discern the differ- 
ence between resisting the Spirit working by means, in your 
sense of the phrase, and resisuung the means themselves : your 
denial of any accompanying influence of the Spirit, evidently 
amounting to a denial of any influence of the Spirit at all; 
there being no other conceivable or possible. 

“That, of the external influence, considered by you as the 


ai 


. THE SPIRIT AND THE WoRD. 161 


influence of the Spirit, more is used with some than with 
others,—and more even with some that are lost than with 
others that are saved, will be found, when analyzed, to 
amount to no more than this—that men are placed by Provi- 
dence in different circumstances, and enjoy various kinds and 
degrees of privilege. Some have better Opportunities than 
others of observing the works of nature; some of reading 
and hearing the inspired word; and some of receiving im- 
pressions from Divine dispensations. What is there more 4 
you deny all inward operation of the Spirit accompanying 
such means of information, impression, and conviction, In 
denying this, you clearly ascribe the efficiency to the means 
themselves. And it is in this that we are constrained to re- 
gard you as denying the reality of the Holy Spirit’s con- 
verting agency altogether. If the influence of the Spirit is 
merely the influence of the word, of evidence, and of circum- 
stances, operating on the human mind independently of any 
efficacious, inward, illuminating, spiritualizing energy, then 
is there nothing supernatural in the case,—nothing beyond, 
or different from, the ordinary phenomena of the mind, as 
affected by information with its attendant proofs, or whatever 
else may contribute to excite attention and command assent. 
When you speak of the Spirit as bringing the means to bear 
upon the mind, and working by them, you do no more than 
put the Spirit in the place of Providence, or of the human 
agent through whose instrumentality Providence acts; the 
means are left to their own natural operation, there being no 
other influence accompanying or superadded.”—Pp. 59, 60. 

I may also add a very clear statement upon the point from 
Pearson on the Creed. “The same Spirit which revealeth 
the object of faith generally to the universal church of God, 
which object is propounded externally by the church to every 
particular believer, doth also illuminate the understanding 
of such as believe, that they may receive the truth; for faith 
is the gift of God, not only in the object but in the act. Christ 
is not only given unto us, in whom we believe, but it is also 
“given us, in the behalf of Christ to believe on Him: and 
this gift isa gift of the Holy Ghost, working within us an 
assent unto that which by the word is propounded to us. By 
this the Lord opened the heart of Lydia; by this the word 
preached profiteth. As the increase and perfection, so the 
original or initiation of faith is from the Spirit of God, not 
only by an external proposal in the word, but by an internal 
illumination in the soul; by which we are inclined to the 


262 LETTER IX. ‘ 


obedience of faith, in assenting to these truths, which unto a 
natural and carnal man are foolishness. And thus we affirm 
not only the revelation of the will of God, but also the illu- 
mination of the soul of man to be part of the office of the 
Spirit of God, against the old and new Pelagians.”—Art, vill 


Da ToD Xx: 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 


“Clouds withont water, carried about of winds "—Jupe 12. 

“ Alas! we are a company of worn-out Christians ; our moon is on 
the wane ; weare much more black than white; more dark than light; 
we shine but little; grace, in the most of us, is sore decayed.””—Bun- 
YAN. 

My pear FRrienp, 

You ask me what I think of the religion of 
the present day—its character as well as its 
progress. J answer, J can hardly tell. Nor 
am I willing to enter upon a very full or ex- 
plicit answer to such a question. I am not 
qualified to judge. Instead, therefore, of at- 
tempting any lengthened answer to such a 
question, I would merely point out a few 
things which lie upon the surface, which may 
help your own judgment upon this point, and 
may tend to establish you in the midst of so 
much instability and conflict. 

As to the religion of our day, it has a very 
mixed sort of complexion. Its nature is rather 
of an indefinite kind, and its progress is not 
easily ascertained. Our present state is not a 
healthy or a natural one. It is doubtful and 


264 LETTER X. 


unsatisfactory. There is much to rejoice in, 
but much to grieve over. ‘There is bustle, ac- 
tivity, zeal, and liberality; yet all these may 
exist, and still spiritual life may be low. 
There may be much blossom and little fruit; 
and even that little not of the rich, mellow 
kind that, in other days, drew our Beloved into 
his garden ‘to eat his pleasant fruits.” 

Religion among us lacks the intense vitality 
of other days. It intermits, fluctuates, and 
then, not seldom, evaporates. It lacks depth 
and strenvth. It lacks natural warmth, and 
too often seems to make up for the want of it 
by friction and excitement. Hence it is often 
wan and pale, relieved by hectic glows which 
soon depart. It bas not the healthy complex- 
ion of more primitive times. And in evidence 
of this, we find it continually turning in upon 
itself, feeling its own pulse, watching its vari- 
ous symptoms, a sure sign of disease, for health 
is unconscious of itself.* 

* One of the great literary journals of our day thus speaks: 
—*“ The healthy know not of their health, but only the sick. 
In the body, the first condition of complete health is, that 
each organ perform its function unconsciously, unheeded. Let 
but any organ announce its separate existence, then already 
has one of these unfortunate false centres of sensibility es- 
tablished itself; already is derangement there. The perfec- 
tion of bodily well-being is, that the collective bodily activi- 


ties seem one; and be manifested, not in themselves, but in 
the action they accomplish.” 


| 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 265 


Tt bears about it many marks of man’s han- 
diwork. The finger of Jehovah is not visibly 
impressed upon it, so that one looking at it 
would be constrained to say, This is the doing 
of the Lord. There is much that is hollow and 
superficial. It is too hasty, too easy, too light 
and frivolous. It is wanting in the fresh- 
ness, the calmness, the simplicity of primitive 
times. We desire something more solid and 
more solemn; peaceful but not stagnant; ear- 
nest but not feverish; energetic but not unstable. 

On the one hand, we have some zealous for 
orthodoxy—tenacious of old forms and phrases, 
and making an idol of their ancestral creed. 
On the other, we have men reckless and head- 
strong in their innovations; rashing from doc- 
trine to doctrine, in the feverish love of change ;* 
rash in judement, and shallow in intellect, de- 
spising creeds, confessions, catechisms, and old 
divinity of every kind; setting themselves up 
as those who alone preach or know the gospel, 
—the people with whom alone wisdom can be 


* The great vice of the present day is presumptuous pre- 
cipitancy of judgment; and there is nothing from which the 
cause of Christianity has suffered more thaw from the impa- 
tience of investigation, and that confidence of decision upon 
hasty and partial views which mark the literary character 
of an age, unde-ervedly extolled for its improvements in 
reasoning and philusophy.”—.Magee on the Atonement, Pref- 
atory address. 7 


23 


266 LETTER X. 


supposed to exist, and with whom it is almost 
certain to die. 

On the one hand, we have men preaching 
the gospel, and, at the same time, hedging it 
about with terms, conditions, restrictions, pre- 
requisites, as if afraid of the very freeness which 
they preach; telling men to come to Christ, 
yet enjoining humiliation, sorrow for sin, 
prayer, &c. as qualifications, without which 
they cannot be received, as if disliking the 
idea of our having to deal with Christ abso- 
lutely and simply as sinners, and as nothing 
else.* On the other hand, we have men, in 
their zeal for a free gospel, reducing it to a mere 
form of words—a current set of phrases, talk- 
ing of it with flippancy and irreverence, as if 
the process of receiving it were a mere me- 
chanical one, like the learning of the alphabet. 

On the one hand, there are those who keep 
the gospel in the background, and dwell con- 
tinually on conviction of sin, and repentance, 
and certain preparatory graces, the depth, and 
amount, and kind of which are pointed out; 


* We have seen, for instance, sermons upon the heatitudes 
in which “meekness,” “poverty of spirit,” &c. were made 
qualifications for coming to Christ; so that, unless the sinner 
can ascertain that he possesses these, he is not warranted to 
come to Christ! Few errors can be worse or more utterly 
unscriptural. 


vy 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 267 


as if afraid that men should come to Christ 
too soon, and have peace. On the other hand, 
we have men making light of convictions, as 
if they were but hindrances, disparaging re- 
pentance as inconsistent with the peace of the 
gospel. 

On the one hand, we have some dwelling 
upon evidences, and experiences, and feelings, 
continually turning the eye backward and in- 
ward, in quest of something there to rest upon. 
On the other, we have men spurning every- 
thing of the kind; not merely rejecting them 
as the ground of peace with God, but utterly 
eontemning them as nothing but self-right- 
eousness and pride. 

On the one hand, we have some giving no 
counsel to an anxious soul, but merely to go 
on praying and waiting ; speaking of ‘the pool 
of ordinances,” at which they instruct the sin- 
ner to wait till the troubling of the water, as 
if he was doing right in continuing in unbelief, 
and as if they themselves shrunk from pro- 
claiming the commandment of God, that men 
should ¢mmediately believe and turn, and that 
it is infinite guilt, as well as unutterable peril, 
to remain one moment longer in unbelief. On 
the other hand, we have men forbidding such 
to pray at all, because God has commanded 


q 


them to believe, as if prayer were not often- 
times the first utterance and expression of 
faith.* 

On the one hand, we have those who think 
assurance nothing else than presumption, and 
the inlet to Antinomian licentiousness ; who 
speak of it only as a thing attainable at the 
close of a saint’s career —as the result of a 
summing up of evidences; who make doubts 
a proof of faith, and a mark of humility, and 
who look suspiciously upon any who are re- 
joicing in the Lord. On the other, there are 
men who make a God of their assurance, and 
a Saviour of their faith, and an idol of their 
peace ; who will hear of no struggle with an 
evil heart of unbelief; no warfare between the 
flesh and spirit; no deep self-loathing and 
mourning over indwelling corruption, as if all / 
these were but the symptoms of the weakness 
or the non-existence of faith, instead of their 
being certain indications of its presence and — 
power. Jor it is where faith is in its strength, 
that the conflict is often most desperate. 

On the one hand, there are those who make 


268 LETTER X. 


* “Tt is the duty of ministers not only to exhort their 
carnal auditors to believe in Jesus Christ. for the salvation 
of their souls; but it is at our peril to exhort them to any- 
thing short of it, or which does not involve or imply it — 


‘uller’s “ Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation.” 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 269 


the work of the Spirit 7 them a resting-place 
for their soul, and the ground of peace be- 
tween them and God, instead of singly and 
steadfastly looking to Christ and his work for 
them, as the one resting-place, the foundation 
of peace and joy. On the other, we see men 
ridding themselves of the Spirit’s work almost 
entirely, and in professing to make the gospel 
simple and faith easy, explaining away the of- 
fice and operation of that very Spirit, without 
whom, ‘‘gospel” and “ faith” are, to the sin- 
ner, but empty and unmeaning names. 

Thus far I have stated the two opposite ex- 
tremes. But it is only with one of these that 
I have at present to do. And it is only of 
the latter that I would speak in the remainder 
of this letter. 

The individuals referred to are certainly 
very zealous for the propagation of their opin- 
ions, and spare no pains in persuading others 
to join them. ‘ They compass sea and land 
to make one proselyte.” Wherever an in- 
quiring sinner is heard of, he is immediately 
searched out, and drawn along with them to 
attend their meetings and to hear their min- 
ister. Books and tracts are thrust upon him; 
all manner of attention is shown him, and 
visits paid to him; and the means are plied so 

23* 


270 LETTER X. 


perseveringly, that he finds it not very easy 
to shake himself free. They think it very 
uncharitable in him to refuse to attend their 
place of worship, but they do not at all deem 
it so never to enter his. They seem to think 
that every denomination should join them, 
while they themselves are to stand aloof from 
all. 

They are very censorious. A great part of 
their religion appears to consist in judging 
others, and pretending to determine their spir- 
itual state.* They talk flippantly about con- 
version, and seem to have no difficulty in set- 
tling who are converted and who are not, by 
some peculiar tests of their own. Those who 
have a single doubt, or who shrink from their 
laneuage of assurance, are pronounced to be 
upon the way to hell. ‘They will have it, that 
nobody preaches a free gospel but themselves, 
and that it is scarcely possible to hear the 
gospel out of their meeting-place, or beyond 
their sect. Their self-confidence is amazing. 
They boast much of the progress of their sect, 


* President Edwards, in his well-known account of the 
revival at Northampton, under his ministry, mentions as a 
remarkuble feature of some of the converts—*a peculiar 
aversion to judge other professing Christians of good stand- 
ing in the church, with respect to their conversion or degrees 
of grace, 4 Thoughts on the Present Revival, de, sect. Vy 
Works, vol. 1. p. 837. 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. O74 


and of all their doings in advancing their 
cause. If they have contrived to raise a little 
excitement in a place, immediately they an- 
nounce a revival of religion, number up their 
converts, and proclaim abroad their success. 
They are harpers upon one string—what 
they call the gospel. One would suppose that 
there was nothing else in the Bible but this. 
They never seem to get farther than the first 
principles of the oracles of God. Those pas- 
sages or chapters out of which they cannot 
extract this gospel are passed over. Many 
portions of Scripture are left unread. We 
“have heard of such profane contempt for the 
word as omitting in family reading such chap- 
ters as the ninth of the Romans, or the first of 
the Ephesians.* As for the ‘sure word of 
prophecy,” they turn away from it. None of 
them seem to know aught about it. The sec- 
ond coming of the Lord is little thought of, 
~~ Tittle preached upon, as the church’s BLEssED 
HoPE. ‘I’o the millennarian views they have 


* Dr. Porter of America, in his work upon Revivals, men- 
tions, that having once preached on election, a man came to 
him to express his dissatisfaction. “So,” said I, “you were 
not pleased with the doctrine of election?” “No, certainly I 
am not.”—* And what do you think of my text and the chap- 
ter (ninth of Romans) out of which it was taken?” * Indeed, 
sir, to be honest, I have always thought that the Bible would 
have been quite as good a book without that chapter.” 


he LETTER X. 


a very strong hostility; for their idea is, that 
they will ere long be able to convert the world, 
and thus the thought of Christ’s speedy com- 
ing, and of the world’s waxing worse and 
worse until he comes, are sad interruptions 
to their magnificent plans. Hence their antip- 
athy to the subject. 

They sit in judgment upon what they hear, 
not so much caring to be fed, as to criticize 
and discuss the subject afterwards—to be able 
to say whether the minister knows the gospel 
or not—whether he be a converted man or not, 
They would not scruple to rise and leave the 
church, if any part of the discourse was not” 
exactly to their taste. ‘They will not endure 
sound doctrine: but, after their own lusts, 
they heap to themselves teachers, having itch- 
ing ears.” 

With these things before me, may I not be 
permitted to question the reality and solidity 
of much that is called religion in the present 
day ? 

I see careless men taking an easy way of 
getting to heaven by saying that they believe; 
and making their own confidence their Sa- 
viour. No wrestling with flesh and blood, or 
with principalities and powers, with the rulers 
of the darkness of this world, with spiritual 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 273 


wickedness in high places!* I see troubled 
souls saying peace to themselves when there 
is no peace, by resolving to be quite sure that 
all is well with them, though their hurt be not 
healed, but only skinned over, and their con- 
science remains unpurged by the blood of 
sprinkling. JI see men intent upon widening 
the strait gate and the narrow way, making 
what they call faith a substitute for every- 
thing, superseding conviction, repentance, self- 
abasement, by their own act of faith. I see 
men, instead of trembling at the word, taking 
it into their lips as they would do a song ora 
proverb, with all the easy flippancy of men 
who were above being solemnized and over- 
awed with the majesty of the voice of Jehovah. 
I see men turning the grace of God into las- 
Civiousness, boastful of their conversion, for- 
ward to speak of it, yet living much as others 
live, and holding it bondage or legality to be 
strict in Sabbath-observance, or days of fast- 
ing, or similar forms and duties ;—nay, some 
are already denying the authority of the Sab- 
bath. I find men holding the doctrine of 
‘“nerfection,” (some having attained it, and 


* “Every man,” says Rutherford, in solemn irony, “hath 
conversion and new birth; but it is not leal come; they had 
never a sick night for sin; conversion came to them ina night 
dream.” —Letters, vol. li. p. 33. 


274 LETTER X. 


some not,) yet still censorious, proud, unchari- 
table, sectarian. I see men mistaking indif- 
ference to sin and ignorance of their own 
deceitful hearts for holiness,—making a merit 
of not mourning for sin, as if that were un- 
suitable to one who is forgiven,—not seeking 
for pardon, nor confessing sin in their prayers, 
—thus combining the vileness of Antinomian- 
ism with the mock-sanctity of perfectionism.* 
I see some, even, whom I believe to be at heart 
Christians, running from doctrine to doctrine, 
from book to book, from church to church, 
attracted by every novelty in the man or the 
message. Having lost the glow of their first 
love, they are seeking it in change and excite- 
ment, or the bold asseveration of their assu- 


* “The vain, foolish, and ignorant disputes of men about 
perfect keeping of the commands of God, of perfection in 
this life, of being wholly and perfectly dead to sin, I meddle 
not now with. It is more than probable that the men of 
those abominations never knew what belonged to the keep- 
ing of any one of God’s commands; and are so much below 
perfection of degrees, that they never attained to a perfection 
of parts in obedience, or universal obedience in sincerity. And 
therefore many in our days who have talked of perfection 
have been wiser, and have affirmed it to consist of knowing 
no difference between good and evil. . . . Others, who 
have found out anew way to it by denying original indwell- 
ing sin, and attempering the spirituality of the law of God 
unto men’s carnal hearts, as they have sufficiently discovered 
themselves to be ignorant of the life of Christ, and the power 
of it in believers, so they have invented a new righteousness 
that the gospel knows not of, being vainly puffed up in their 
fleshly minds.”— Owen on the Mortification of Sin. 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 275 


rance. Miserable exchange, indeed, for the 
loss of their first love! Vain device to recover 
the fresh life and glow of other days by having 
recourse to something else than the living 
Christ himself! Sad delusion of the false spirit, 
to which some seem to be given over, in right- 
eous recompense for having rejected the unction 
of the Holy One! 

But I shall not prolong the description. I 
have already said enough to give you some 
idea of the state of religion among many in 
our day. I do not say that this description 
applies to all the holders of the new theology. 
No; I believe there are some to whom it does - 
not. ‘They are holy, and living men, in spite 
of their system, and in opposition to their own 
theology. 

Those to whom it may apply may take of- 
fence at what I have written. ‘They may 
deem me uncharitable and harsh. But I have 
written strongly because I felt that the evil 
was great, and that smooth words would have 
but concealed its magnitude. The words may 
seem sharp and severe, but no hostile feelings 
towards any individuals whatever mingle with 
my exposition of their doctrines. 

Having myself written much in defence of 
a free gospel, I felt the more called upon now 


276 LETTER X. 


to write what I bave written here, and to 
write it in the way that I have done. TI hold 
and preach as free a gospel as ever I did, nor 
shall I be driven from it by the extremes into 
which some have gone. They have brought 
reproach upon the freeness of the gospel by the 
false doctrine with which they encircle it. 
They have made many suspicious even of the 
very name of the gospel. But this is only 
Satan’s old device. He wants to make the 
gospel odious; and he has, to no small extent, 
succeeded. But shall this binder us from 
proclaiming it as before? Shall this lead us 
to hedge it about and guard it, and affix con- 
ditions to it, because of such abuses? No; 
let us grasp it entire. Let us lilt up our 
voices as loudly as ever,—‘‘ Ho! every one 
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.” 

Let us not limit the gospel, nor abate aught 
of its absolute and unconditional freeness. Let 
us not cast any stumbling-block in the sinner’s 
way, nor tell him that he is not at liberty to 
come and be forgiven, just as he stands this 
very instant. Let us not tell him that he 
must get quit of his sins, and repent and pray, 
and wait, and do his best, in order that after 
all this he may be qualified for coming to the 
Saviour. Let us not allow him to suppose 


' 
) 
‘ 
< 


PRESENT STATE OF RELIGION. 277 


that there is any one thing required of him 
before coming, or that he is not welcome to 
his Father’s house and his Father’s arms, even 
now, poor prodigal as he is. 

We may be accused of inconsistency and 
self-contradiction,—one sermon may be con- 
trasted with another,—one statement may be 
held up as the antagonist of the other. But 
still let us not be moved away, either from the 
the gospel or its hope. We believe in a gospel 
free to aL, and we preach it as such,—going 
up to every man with the message of peace on 
our lips, and the blessings of salvation in our 
hands, saying, ‘‘ Be thou reconciled to God.” 

Or, perhaps we may be accused of an igno- 
rant attachment to antiquated creeds, and of 
blind veneration for the straitened theology of 
other days. Now, though wishing to draw di- 
rect from the fountain-head, and to call no man 
master, yet we do confess a liking to those 
doctrines which, in life and in death, were 
grasped so strongly by our fathers,-—those 
much-praying, much-believing, deep-thinking, 
hard-toiling, sore-suffering men, whose eyes 
grew early dim, and whose hair grew early 
gray. We are not ashamed to confess a satis- 
faction in sitting at the feet of such men, and 
listening to their solemn teaching, in preference 


278 LETTER X. 


to seeking instruction from men whose shal- 
lowness and self-confidence make us feel, that 
instead of teaching others, they have need that 
one teach them again what be the first princi- 
ples of the oracles of God. 

Yours, &e. 


THUS SAITH THE LORD: 


“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my 
people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, where there is no 
peace.”—Jer, vi. 14. 

“They are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts.”— 
Jer, xxili. 26. 

“Tam against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my 
words, every man from his neighbor.’—Jer. xxiii. 30. 

“A voice of a multitude being at ease was with her.”— 
Ezek. xxiii. 42. 

“ Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge 
of the truth.”—2 Tim. ill. 7. 

“ Beguiling unstable souls.”"—2 Pet. ii, 14. 


NOTES. 


Towards the close of the 16th century, lax views regarding 
the work of the Spirit seem to have been introduced into 
Holland in connection with or at least in the train of Socin- 
ianism. In the beginning of the following century, these 
Opinions spread, and a controversy arose which led to the 
assembling of the Synod of Dort in 1618, at which Synod 
these were strongly condemned. The statement of the Synod 
is as follows:—* Which regeneration, or second creation, is 
not brought to pass by bare instruction sounding to the out- 
ward ear, nor by moral inducements; no, nor by any kind 
of operation so carried on, that when God had done his part, 
it should remain in man’s choice to be or not to be regene- 
rate, to be or not to be converted; but is 2 supernatural, a 
most powerful, and withal, most sweet, wonderful, hidden, 


NOTES. 279 


and unspeakable working, being for the mightiness thereof 
not inferior to the creation of the world, or the raising of the 
dead.” 

But the decree of the Synod did not arrest the controversy ; 
it rather called it forth in a new shape. The o/d Arminians 
were silenced, but not convinced ; while in their place there 
arose a Class professing to agree cordially with the synodical 
articles, yet putting a construction of their own upon them. 
Among the first of these was Johu Camere or Cameron, ori- 
ginally a Scotsman, but who had spent many years abroad. 
He was attacked on right and left. The orthodox main- 
tained that he was departing from the Synod’s Articles, 
Some of the thorough-going Arminians assailed him as dis- 
honest, and one of them anonymously, under the name of 
“Vir Doctus,” published a letter against him, of very con- 
siderable length, expressing his surprise that Camero should 
profess to agree with the Synod. Camero wrote a long and 
somewhat sharp but elaborate reply, occupying nearly 80 
folio pages of his works, in which he maintains his orthodoxy 
most strenuously. He is perhaps not so explicit as he might 
have been; at the same time, he is very far from countenan- 
cing the modern notions. His disciples, Amyrald and Tes- 
tard, continued to maintain the same ground. They were 
vigorously and learnedly opposed by Rivet. 

The controversy went on, and was taken up in France by 
Pajon, Protestant minister at Orleans, a man of acute and 
subtle mind, who had distinguished himself in the Popish 
controversy. He was born in 1626, and died in 1685. His 
opinions went under the name of Pajonism.* He did not 
deny the necessity of grace, even preventing grace; nor even 
the reality of grace working in us all that is good; nor the 
particularity and efficacy of grace. “He wished only to 
Inquire into the mode of the Spirit’s operation, and how grace 
is rendered effectual in us; whether this operation of grace 
in those that believe, or the elect, is only moral and rational, 
—that of an objective cause, by which the Spirit acts effica- 
ciously, no doubt, upon the mind in illuminating it, upon the 
heart and will in powerfully turning them, yet still through 
the mediate operation of the word and other external means, 
such as the power and efficacy of reasons, motives, opportu- 
nities, which are objectively presented to our mind in the 


* “Tnvisum nomen Pajonismi.”—Spanhemii LHlenchus, 
p- 285. 


280 NOTES. 


Word of God, by the promises, threatenings, d&c., and neces- 
sarily determine us. And that thus the efficacy and insu- 
perability of grace does not arise from the invincible, imme- 
diate, and supernatural operation of the Spirit upon the mind 
and will of those who are called according to God's purpose, 
distinct from the external efficacy of the Word, and of the 
means which are presented to us; but it arises, on the one 
hand, from an internal disposition of the man, which is very 
different. according to the difference of mind, inclination, 
corruption ; and on the other, from the external presenting 
of objects, which grace so dispenses to the elect, and with 
such circumstances, that they cannot fail to affect the minds 
of those who are rightly disposed, and to win the assent of 
their wills, and thus produce faith.” Such is the account 
given us of Pajon’s opinions by a contemporary. (Frederick 
Spanheim the younger, in his Hlenchus Controversarium 
selectiorum, p. 285.) ‘hey are a step in advance of Camero’s 
views, and come nearer the Pelagianism of modern times 
than almost any heretofore. Mosheim seems to wish to dis- 
credit the charges against Pajon as made by his adversaries ; 
but Spanheim, who gives a very calm and particular account 
of his views, professes to draw his statements from unexcep- 
tionable authorities. Both Mosheim and his translator leaned 
too much to Pajon’s views, and hence the desire of both to 
ward off the accusations. After Pajon’s death, his nephew, 
Papin, carried on the controversy, in which he was opposed 
by the famous Jurieu of Rotterdam. Papin’s opinions were 
condemned in 1688 by the French Synod, and shortly after 
he himself joined the Church of Rome. 

Somewhat similar opinions, though in measure modified, 
appeared not only in our own country, but also on the Con- 
tinent, about the middle or towards the end of the last cen- 
tury. The whole tone of that century was decidedly of an 
Arminian cast. Pajon’s views are substantially the same as 
those to be found in Doederlein and Knapp in their Institutes 
of Theology, the latter of which has lately been reprinted. 
The former of these devotes a long section to the illustration 
and defence of his views upon the work of the Spirit, which 
correspond very strikingly to the dogmas of our own day. 
Doederlein, vol. ii. pp. 585-650, De operationibus gratiae. 
Knapp, pp. 396-412. The translator of Knapp, however, 
gives two very striking passages from Bretschneider and 
Reinhard, in favor of an immediate operation of the Spirit. 
“That God has power to act inwardly upon the souls of men, 


————_ 


NOTES. 281 


and to awaken ideas in their minds, cannot be denied, Ag 
the Creator of their spirit, he knows their nature, and how 
he can operate upon them, and as Almighty he must be able 
to produce in his creatures any effect which he desires. The 
possibility of an inward agency of God upon the world of 
spirits cannot be denied, although the manner in which this 
agency is exerted is inscrutable, which indeed is true as to 
the manner of all Divine operations, With what truth is it 
supposed that these influences must hamper the free agency 
of the mind, and reduce the subject of them to a mere ma- 
chine? Does not the teacher often, in giving instruction to 
the child, suddenly interrupt the course of his thoughts, and 
put him on an entirely new train of ideas? But are the laws 
of mind in the child violated by this interruption? But the 
teacher, it is said, makes use of words. Cannot God, how- 
ever, by an alloguiwin internum cause new thoughts in the 
souls of men? Or are words the only way in which a spirit 
can impart his light to other spirits ?’—Bretschneider. “There 
can be no reason why we, with the Scriptures, should not 
conceive of an immediate influence, since such an influence 
is far more adapted than one which is mediate, to the sphere 
(the spiritual world) of which we are speaking.”—Reinhard. 

It is worthy of notice that all the Socinians and Neolo- 
gians abroad, all the High Church divines in England, and 
Mod-rate divines in Scotland, have denied the doctrine of an 
immediate operation of the Spirit, while almost all the godly 
Lutheraas and Calvinists abroad, Reformers, Puritans, Non- 
conformists, Covenanters at home, have maintained it. When- 
ever there was death in the church, then the immediate energy 
was denied—when there was life then it was admitted, even 
by such men as Wesley, who contended for an universal 
atonement. The Rowites in our own day never maintained 
that the Spirit was in the word, or that he wrought equally 
in all. They held only that Christ had the Spirit given him 
for all, and that it was out of him that the sinner is to obtain 
it. See Campbells Sermons, vol. 1. pp. 100 and 179, and 
other places, 

I have thrown these few facts together, merely as what 
have occurred in my own reading, without pretending to give 
anything like a full or connected view of the matter in ques- 
tion. 

In addition to the above hints, the reader may consult Dr. 
M‘Crie’s Life of Rivet, in the volume of his Miscellaneous 
Writings, pp. 124-128. There the following curious remark 


24* 
: 


282 NOTES. 


occurs,—a remark illustrated by the tactics of some in our 
day. “Those who have attempted to introduce novel opin- 
ions in churches have often defended themselves from the 
writings of those who were never before suspected of enter- 
taining such sentiments as theirs, . . . It is not difficult | 
to extract from former authors detached sentiments, or inci- 
dental and loose expressions, appearing to favor an error 
which was not then broached, or which they were not guard- 

ing against, while they wrote against adversaries of an oppo- ~ | 
site description.” P. 126. 


Assurance, erroneous views 


GENERAL INDEX. 


P 

Election, attempts to evade, "38 
———_—--=! VIG WSiGis te - 67-95 
Meaning of, : 
Calvin’s view of, 81 
Errors on religion, causes of, 19-33 
Faith, scriptural view of, 145, 154 
—— Calvin's view of, 153 
Finney, views of depravity 

referred to, : 4 é 180 
Foreknowledge, . ° 96-125 
Fuller, A. quoted, 205, 221, 268 
God, his decrees, - 71-75, 86 
—— foreknowledge, .. 96 


Abel, an example of God’s 
election, : ‘ : - * 92 
Abraham, do., - ~ - 69 
Adam,do., . : ° : 
All, meaning of the term in . 
Scripture, . - 138-142, 162 
Antichrist, self-will summed 
pins. . : ‘ - 64 
mes’ view of predestina- 
: + 97 
of, - 164-166, 398 


tion quoted, 
Mr. R. Haldane’s view 


Ol vs 5 - 167, 172 | ——~ his glory the design of 
Atonement, a definite work, 143 his works, - 36-47, 8&3 
= Candlish on - 126 | —— his love, < : 3 78 
_— Hodge on, - - 162/—— his purpose in man’s 


Barnes, Notes on Ephes. i. 5, 
quoted, : ° 1 OF 

Bunyan quoted, . . - 146 

Candlish referred to, = 126, 137 


creation, “ 
—— his sovereignty, ix., 61-80 
his will and man’s will, 50-65 
Gospel, its freeness, 26, 27, 42 


Calvin quoted, 81, 146, 152, 153 hated by the uncon- 

Changes in theological Opin- vertedy ek 4 SF 
ions, causes of, . F 19, 30 | Haldane, Rob., quoted, 147, 154, 168 

Christ’s work, 4 » 126-144] Hodge, quoted, . 164 


Church, Christ a ransom for, 126 
the bride, . - 128-13) 
Conversation between a min- 
ister and a stranger on pre- 
destination, . : + 120-124 
Conversion, the end to be 
keptin viewin, . : 34-49 
——_——— the Spirit’s work, 152 
Correspondence of the Con- 
gregational churches quo- 
ted, : - - - Xili., 260 
Depravity, man’s total, viii., 80, 180, 
Finney’s erroneous 
views of, : - 180 
Difficulties in reconciling 
Scripture uo reason for un- 
belief, cae ee es Gey SO 


Inability, moral and physical, 177 
consistency with re- 

sponsibility, - 180 
Kelso Tracts, : ; - 106 
Krummacher quoted, . - i 
Last days, sign of, - eEXLV. 
Man’s agency, too great prom- 

inence given to, 35, 50, 63, 76 

= GOpravilysee c 81 
Se ADI tye ee A 177-205 
“My Old House” referred to, xii 
Owen, Dr., quoted, . - 1 
Perfection, doctrine of, held 

by some, A oo Bare: 
Prayer, the principle on which 

it proceeds, 0° ci | ¢ 08 
Predestination, . c 96-125 


284 


Page 


Principles, general, 4 19-49 


GENERAL INDEX. 


Spirit, the Holy, influences 


Religion, present state of, 263-282] of, an improper expression, 258 
——+— what itlacks, .  . 264|——— erroneous views of, 268 
Rutherford quoted, ° . 170| Theological views of the 
Salvation, - 4 present day, their origin 
Sanctification, view ‘of; by and principles, . 19-49 
Rutherford, . 170| Trail quoted, ” 156-158 

Sanders’ Jehovah Tsidkenu Truth, pot unattainable, e . dl 
quoted, - 7|——— “coming to” an in- 

Saul, his conversion an "ex- correct expression, ‘ 149 
ample of God’s fore- Unbelief, the cause of con- 
knowledge, . ° demnation, . q 

Self-will, the essence of reer of Creation referred 
antichrist, . “ - . 64 = xiii 

Spirit, the Holy, o uae will, freedom of, 201 

———his work, . . 206, 215 | —— Man’s, opposed. to God, 76 


does not operate ex- 
clusively through 
the word, . “ 


8-141 


Word, the, and the Spirit, 206-260 
—— power in, what it means, 224 


SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 


—<=— 
GENESIS. 1 CHRONICLES. 
Chap. Verse. Page.| Chap. Verse. Page. 
Vi. 5 204 XXViili. 4. 68 
E chat ioe NEHEMIAH. 
ix. : 
EXXiii, 19 65 2 ‘ 70 
NUMBERS. xi a at 
XVil. 5 68 xi 14 65 
DEUTERONOMY. xiV 4 204 
vil. 7 90 XXXivV. 29 65 
xii. Q1 68 PsaLMs. 
ue 7 eet xix 8 220 
Soe S| 
1 Betee, Ixxviii, 67-68 68 
. _ “ civ. 30 259 
: CXixX. 36 231, 259 
K cxix 73-88 231, 259 
1 Kinas. CXix, 125 259 
xi. 32 68 cxli. 4 259 


SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 


PROVERBS. 
Chap. Verse. Page. 

xvi. 4 47, 89 

ECCLESIASTES. 
vii. 20 204 
ISAIAH. 

xli. 4 124 
xlv. 9 34 
xlv. 22 175 

xlvi. 10 9] 

ly. 3 175 

Ixiii. il 259 

lxiv. 8 91 
JEREMIAH. 

i. 5 124 

vi. 14 278 
xiii. 23 Aber: 

XVii. 9 204 
XViii. 6 47 
Xxiii. 26-30 278 

EZEKIEL. 

Xi. 19 259 
XViii. 31 200 
XXiii. 42 156 

XXXVi. 26 244 
XXXVii. 14 259 
DANIEL. 

iv. 35 65 

Ma.acut. 
G Q 90 
MarTrurw. 

xi. 25 90 
xiii 11 90 
xiii. 15 204 

XX, 16 68 

28.6 Je! 90 
XXxii. 14 90 

XXxiii. 8 

Xxiv. 6 

XXV. 5 139 
XXvi. a | 
Mark. 
i. 5 138 
xiii, 20 68 
LUKE. 
Vii. 30 138 
xi. 12 238 


JOHN. 
Verse. Page. ° 
6 204 
16 175 
24 175 
44, 65 180, 204 
33 
11, 14, 
15. 26 134, 144 
18 68 
17 259 
4,5 259 
16 68, 90 
8 248, 
13 206, 
2535, 05) 
9 12) 19 { 134, 144 
247 
31 175 
Acts. 
5 ] 
23 91, 103 
41 170 
27-28 91, 103 
32 
39 170 
15 
43 158 
38 67, 89 
18 
34 170 
26 1% 
10 139 
28 126 
29 144 
ROMANS. 
5 175 
1 145, 176 
5 

14-18, 

9-23 f 204 
26 238 
28 124 
29 105 
14 92 
15 48, 78 
17 89, 120 
20 48 
21 92 
17 154 
36 124 
13 248 


286 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 
1 CorINnTHIANS. 2 Timoruy. 
Chap. Verse. Page. Chap. _—‘ Verse. 
iii. 16 259 i 9 
xii. 3 Q41 i. 24 
XY. 3 158 iii. 4 
iii. 6 
2 CoRINTHIANS. iii. 7 
ii, 28 139 iv. 3 
iv. 6 241 Tirie. 
GALATIANS, i. 10 
ie 15 241 
HEBREWS. 
EPHESIANS. ii. 9 
* 4. 4 68, 90, 91 xili. 9 
Reteyy & 97, 124 
i, 17 244 1 PETER. 
i. 11 96, 125 i 9 
ii. 1 205 iil. 91 
ii. 8 145 j 
tii. 1 125 
iii, 10 48 2 PETER. 
iii. 12 176 ii. 14 
Re 16 247 
Vv. 14 33 
iv. 19 205 i 
v 25 134, 144 ‘tice 
iv. 16 
PHILIPPIANS. vy. 11 
ii. 13 
JUDE. 
1 TressaLonrAns. i. 12 
Vo 9 125 
REVELATION. 
2 THESSALONIANS, xiii. 8 
iL, 13 68, 125 XVii. i 


| 
| 


one 


Pith J 


vnied * tig) 


+e, 


ry 
ii 


, 
Piety as 


1 1012 0 


12 


Wi 
7167 | 9 


1 


» ORCL 
. > - 


CP 
rr 
ai) 
£6 


— 
m 
0 
Cc 
m 


GAYLORD 


#3523PI 


Printed in USA 


Pros 


* al, ae ee. 
ibaa tepree te eee 
= is sry es 


= 
Crees 


